1. Nick Booth

   Culture will evolve regardless of the structure of the cultural industries. Culture will continue to attract attention – and where the audience is either sufficiently wealthy or sufficiently large, then that culture will command a price.

   So however hard you try to break the connection between culture and money making (and I know that is not your intent) you will fail, so in some senses it is a hugely important non question.

   Oct 30th, 2008

2. Dubber

   True – but that’s never an easy process, and on the one hand, the status quo will always fight tooth and nail to stop it from progressing and on the other, culture is always built upon the infrastructure that exists, even if only to usurp and defy it.

   Neither process happens in a vacuum, and both are always trying to subvert the ends of the other. Culture will always evolve, but the existing structures will always try and define the ways in which that evolution takes place. Those ends are often at odds.

   It’s not as if culture evolves and the industries can get involved if they wish to make money.

   New culture is formed by breaking bits off the old one and putting them together in new and previously unimagined (and unauthorised) ways.

   So to put it another way – when that cultural evolution is at the expense of those cultural industries, is it okay that those creative people lose money, lose jobs or have their work taken without their permission in the service of a disruptive media shift?

   Can anything be done about that – and if so – should it?

   Oct 30th, 2008

3. Nick Booth

   I have to say I’m not grieving for 15th century monks.

   Oct 30th, 2008

4. Dale Adams

   I think that this is a great question. I believe that the evolution of culture is more important than any restriction imposed on art. As you pointed out, Hip Hop/Rap was made by completely ignoring the rules until it became prevalent enough to warrant an agreement for those copyright holders. Also, let’s not forget Andy Warhol and his pop art would’ve never even seen his own 15 minutes if copyright restrictions were then as they are now.

   So for all intents and purposes, laws sometimes have to be ignored for progress to move forward (sans murder of course). Otherwise corporations will stifle innovation of creation and distribution channels for their very survival.

   We have to realize the music business is still in puberty and going through changes now that will be beneficial to the future of our culture. Let’s just keep the ideas flowing and build a better business model in it’s place. One that will benefit both artists and the music business as a whole so that everyone that loves music can have it wherever they can get it.

   Oct 30th, 2008

5. Nathan West

   From what I understand, copyright began with the intention of stimulating the market to create more media – more art.With that in mind, cultural shift seems far more important.

   Can something be done about to keep individuals from losing money/jobs? I would like to say if the status quo would wise up and join the evolution they wouldn’t. But i know it’s not as simple as all that.

   The music industry, more specifically the tradition recording industry, is a good example of a sociological theory – the conflict theory. Basically the superior class (in this case big record labels) already have large amounts of influence and resources. They use these resources to rule over the lower classes (musicians, possibly even fans) and keep them in check by telling them things like “it’s for your own good”, “this is how the country (recording industry) works”, etc. Eventually, though means of education (in this case new technology) the lower class becomes aware of it’s predicament and uses it’s education to cause a social revolution and cause a major shift in power.

   Sorry, a little bit of a tangent. Talking about cultural change just reinforced that idea for me.

   Oct 30th, 2008

6. Milton

   Alright, I am going to do my best not to show my ignorance here. I think I understand the question so here goes:

   First I will touch on your (Andrew) ‘comment’ reply just above where you ask “…is it okay that those creative people lose money, lose jobs or have work taken without permission in the service of a disruptive media shift?”

   The short, morality based answer is “Gosh no, that sucks.”

   The more mindful and forward thinking answer is that there is a compromise to be found that will surely have it’s casualties but achieve long term success (for who knows how long? A few decades?) and it is just a matter of determining what that compromise will be.

   I guess to explain more specifically what I mean (remember the ‘ignorance’ disclaimer at the top, I going to be as specific as my layman vocabulary can be);

   Yes the “rebels” the “pirates” and the all out revolutionaries will always emerge to help push the evolution of culture forward. No matter the financial, political, etc. etc. environment. The “punk rock” state of mind innovator is not looking for a profit. In fact I would say his main objective is to push the culture forward.

   This “punk rock” mentality could be a misleading term as many of the punks of the late 70’s and 80’s were on a much more selfish agenda. What I mean is more the beatnik/independent type when I refer to that term.

   These independent minded people also handle much music “business” these days and that gives me confidence that the compromise mind set is in play at some level even now. (I mean look at this blog and it’s community!)

   So I believe that there will be many casualties of the metamorphosis currently under way in the musical environment. These casualties will range from artists to big labels. No one is safe…Save those for whom the almighty dollar / Euro / Yen / etc. etc. has no value and is of no concern. For the rest of the sonic minded shakers and movers this is going to be a tricky course to navigate…But there will of course be survivors. Smart folks.

   For those independent musicians and artists out there I like to believe a passion for music and creating is the main motivating force for them and that they will continue to create no matter the state of the business end. This insures that culture will continue to evolve. There will be diamonds in the rough that eventually shine, there will be always be cream rising to the top. Greatness always finds a way to make itself known.

   To conclude my bit here I will address the last question at the end of your comment reply:

   “Can anything be done about this – and if so – should it?”

   I have a sampler. I use it. Stop me if you can.

   I may not make a living out here in the music biz but but god I am going to enjoy myself! Maybe I get to be some underground innovator that suddenly finds profit as part of my daily vocabulary…But not before I have spent countless hours of happiness making random noises that please me to no end!

   Innovation and culture evolution will never end. Capitalism will l continue for a while too…so buck up music making lovers! You have your instruments, they cant take those away from you!

   OK, hope that was useful or at least worthwhile and maybe even answered the question you asked us readers!

   Keep up the really good work Andrew. This is quite a story you have developed here over the last few years.
   Milton

   Oct 30th, 2008

7. Dubber

   One quick point: never underestimate just how political and aware punk was and is…

   Oct 30th, 2008

8. Milton

   Point taken. Sid Vicious was sticking out in my mind as a used the “punk” reference, ergo my inclination to clarify my meaning. I agree that European as well as American punk was often very much about politics (at least for many of the bands Bad Brains comes to mind as well as Jello’s outfit DK’s).

   Oct 30th, 2008

9. Marc Vermut

   @Nathan’s point is on target re the origination of copyright/IP rules. What strikes me most, and bouncing off of your point (Andrew) regarding the mutually inclusive nature of culture vs commerce, is that money flows to where people experience utility. Before there was the ability to sell media/music/art to a mass audience, history provided us with patrons that funded art/music for ego/altruism/society (but mostly ego). Now there are many ways to earn (some) money in the music industry (if not directly from the sale of recorded music). And people will still pay for those goods they value and for which they have affinity. So, one might assume that cultural growth occurs if it is deemed valuable by someone.

   With respect to the balance of legislative control over new innovation, while radio/tv/movies may have started off via “pirating,” those represent the medium and not the content or the culture. Unless you are arguing that culture includes how we consume media.

   So, are you limiting your question of cultural growth to the incorporation of existing art into new forms of art? Then that leads back to your post suggesting a renewable copyright rule of 5 years. If the question is what’s the right balance, well, I think that it’s both. Where money is made from the exploitation of art, the creators should be compensated. But not for the equivalent of forever.

   Oct 30th, 2008

10. Raspusha

    Hi my names Raspusha,
    How are we today?I am good if anybody would like to know.
    The question you have asked yourself is very intelectual and challanges the brain. Its good to get your brain stimulated.
    Do you get your 30 minutes of physicl activity a day ??

    
    Have a good day to you all.

    Oct 30th, 2008

11. Mark Griffiths

    Personally I think that both are equal in a way, I don’t see that either could happen without the other in equal measure, although not necessarily all the time.

    Stepping out of music for a second, I believe that the evolution of culture or even just ideas taps into the exploratory side of human nature. What can we do with what we’ve got to better ourselves? Be that musically, technologically or whatever.

    Making money (in our current capitalist environment) taps into the survival instinct of human nature. How can we increase/maintain our resources based on the ideas/knowledge that we have available to us.

    I believe that they must be equally important because culture is somewhat dependent on money, you need resources with which to innovate. Everyone needs a new guitar/computer/can of paint and so there has to be some sustainable rate between meme and money in order for any cultural evolution to continue.

    Saying that, I think that cultural evolution has to come before monetisation and that is clearly the case in the changing music industry today and as far as I’m aware has been the case in musical revolutions of the past.

    I don’t really worry about people losing jobs/money as change occurs as this has always been the case and I’m certainly not going to raise the flag of the luddites because someone brought along something new that renders what I am doing less profitable/sustainable.

    I think that what we have is an inevitable cycle that cannot be broken, if we all innovate, no-one is making money and that cannot be sustainable. If we’re all making money, then no-one is innovating and our cultural existence plateaus and we all get bored (and stop buying?).

    @Rapusha – I broke my record on Wii bowling and did bit of Wii golf if that counts, my aching muscles are telling me that it does.

    Oct 30th, 2008

12. Regan Cunliffe

    I believe that the best solution is for music to be free for personal use but cost for commercial use. In this environment, artist capitalise on selling merchandise and touring – which is where the real money is anyway.

    The business of music would be to license into soundtracks for film and tv and collect royalties from radio etc.

    Oct 30th, 2008

13. Stu Venable

    Being a performer of much “traditional” music, this is a very apropros. I was preparing to work on a collection of American prohibition era music, done up as drinking songs. (much of this is US-centric, as that’s where I live, and those are the laws by which I’m bound).

    I found that much of the music I wanted to record was still under copyright, thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. It would take an act of God to find out who to send the mechanical rights checks to for these songs. I mean, how on Earth am I going to find out who owns the rights to “The Lips that Tough Liquor Will Never Touch Mine?”

    As I was researching this, I realized that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act basically killed “traditional” music in the US. Music lapses into the public domain 95 years after the author’s death or 120 years from creation (which ever comes first).

    How will this kill “traditional” music? Almost no music written today (or much from the last century) will be re-recorded by new artists in new mediums, and thus kept in the collective consciousness.

    Simply the chilling effect of that possible lawsuit from some songwriter’s heirs will stop people from recording it.

    “Traditional” music is a very important link to a culture’s past. In a large part it is who we are?

    What’s the first song you’ll teach your children? “Rock and Roll All Night” by Kiss or “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” (or it’s filked version, “Now I know my ABCs”)? That’s an OLD song. Good thing it wasn’t written in the 20th century, because if it was, it would probably be lost, because no one could find out who owns the rights to it to record it and keep it alive. And you wouldn’t be able to publish sheet music for it either, by the way.

    In my opinion copyrights are far too long in the States. Copyrights should last 20 or 25 years from creation, maybe with a few 5 year extensions.

    So to answer your question:
    “Should property rights (in this case, intellectual property rights) take precedence and priority over cultural and media shift.”

    No. At least not to the extend they do here and now.

    The effects of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act has on traditional American music won’t be felt for several decades at least. But I have a feeling, there’s going to be a large void in the body of American traditional music in about 50 years. At least the internet will preserve some of it through the near interminable copyright term.

    Oct 30th, 2008

14. Wells Baum

    My label just put out Hank Williams The Unreleased Recording. It’s important that we do all three with this great content, make money, expand Hank culture which is the roots of country music, and grow the distribution chain by connecting with digital opportunities on mobile phones. I wanted to created a Hank iPhone application so please let me know if you have any vendors in mind.

    The music must tell a story, that’s the most important thing.

    Oct 30th, 2008

15. Dubber

    “So, are you limiting your question of cultural growth to the incorporation of existing art into new forms of art?”

    I can’t think of an example of another kind of art. As Lessig’s always saying, culture builds upon the past. There are always ingredients of older media in new media.

    And I should say that I’m not talking about capital A ‘Art’ here, particularly, but about media forms like recorded music, graffiti, television… I think about media as a McLuhanist: that is, that all of the things we human beings invent with which to communicate are media.

    But every change to the media environment, through the creation of a new media form (be it commercial radio, turntablism, bit torrent or the mp3) provides the catalyst for change to culture (which I define here simply as ‘what people do and make’).

    When media changes, ‘what people do and make’ also changes – and this more often than not means that ‘what people do and make’ contravenes certain established rules about what people should do and make – or what people must not do and make (because it causes material losses to honest citizens and corporations, or because it threatens established norms of decency and propriety).

    When that happens, society (ie: those concerned with preserving the interests of honest citizens and corporations, and the norms of decency and propriety) kicks back.

    In other words, cultural change is always in some way oppositional to what society thinks is important – at least until that new cultural form becomes the accepted norm, around which people can get jobs, make money, have property rights and enjoy the protection of society from attacks by new (counter-)cultural forms.

    And so media shift creates a situation in which there are outsiders who are labelled pirates. These people commit acts of ‘piracy’, until such time as their flavour of piracy becomes a mainstream activity, and is legitimised (through legislation) into conventional forms (eg: UK pirate radio into UK commercial radio).

    But until that happens, the pirates are a menace and a threat that must be crushed because they go against what decent society considers fair, just and right.

    Re: Traditional music
    When the current copyright model was implemented, society beat culture hands down. Retrieving, replicating and releasing old music for the sake of cultural heritage didn’t factor because corporations were at that time exclusively interested in manufacturing and releasing new recordings – and maintaining the right to earn on the older stuff. And it was corporations and their lobbyists who won the day that time around.

    People who have understood my position on copyright will know that generally speaking, I’m not against corporations being able to earn on old stuff they made, but that my problem is with blanket extension. In other words, these rules don’t just apply to the things they’re trying to make money out of, but to all things – even where it makes no sense (as in the case Stu mentions above).

    My point, I guess, is that it’s always a bunfight. And my suspicion is that whenever decent society wins against these cutural pirates, things that should be possible (like the preservation and circulation of older musical forms) are impeded.

    But, of course, things are never that simple – and decent folk always get caught up in the mess. So, to return to an earlier discussion – people using new media to do and make what they want to do and make are not playing by the established rules, and not paying the copyright holders the money they believe they deserve.

    Oct 30th, 2008

16. Leon Live

    “Is it more important that music businesses make money, or is it more important that culture expands, innovates and grows?”

    they are both of equal importance.

    BUT, record companies need to stop trying to ‘make as much money as possible’ mindset and change their goals to work FOR and WITH an artist in both an artistic sense AND a financial sense.

    They need to start realising that they can make money from the long tail with new artists as well as established back catalogues.

    Businesses need to reduce costs and become more efficient. when the business streamlines and reduces costs and accepts the new digital world, then they will be themselves opening up to a much more diverse cultural catlogue of music and then maybe, just maybe the radio stations will play more than the same 20 bland ‘manufactured’ trash songs 20 times a day, day in day out.

    Case in point.
    Wedding pgotographers.
    They now have Digital Camera’s and Photoshop. Yet they still charge the huge prices they did when they were still doing all the manual processing and darkroom work……
    I know a few friends who are great photographers who’ve capitalised on this and are now doing weddings for £150 – £200

    You cant charge for what you dont do anymore because of a fundamental shift in technology.

    The problem is the ‘pro’ wedding guys are stuck in a situation where they live their day to day lives based on their ‘old’ earnings, so they have a mortgage and a car thats based on £600-£1000 a wedding.

    Technology has come in and said…’err no, you can now do that same job for £150-£300′

    change or die as a new group of people come in and do your job for less.

    I think far too many albums are recorded at far to much cost becasue the record compaines are still stuck in a mindset that the more money it costs to record the better it will sound therefore the more it will sell.
    And Producers are still living like the wedding photographers………

    Oct 30th, 2008

17. Andrew Potterton

    My answer.
    Both. I do some “commercial” music and make some money, then do some boundary pushing, out there, innovative, creative music. Just to stay sane.
    Its a horrible mess but there you go.

    Peace to you all – Andy Potterton.

    Oct 30th, 2008

18. Crosbie Fitch

    Intellectual property rights are far more important than cultural enrichment.

    It is precisely because our fundamental right to cultural liberty has been suspended (to privilege publishers in the form of a reproduction monopoly), that we are suffering harassment and persecution from publishers as we engage in a natural process of cultural exchange.

    Abolish the mercantile privilege of copyright, and restore everyone’s natural intellectual property rights.

    Manacling the public’s hands 300 years ago with the excuse that this incentivises printers to print books is a painful anachronism in this information age.

    Oct 30th, 2008

19. Jeroen

    They are both of equal importance.

    Culture has a right to evolve, and absorp as much from commerce as it can. Commerce has a right to profit from culture.

    This relationship has existed since the dawn of time. Culture and entertainment were provided, and someone profited from it. Whether it was a medieval king who paid the minstrel, to entertain his guests and reflect on his status (ego rewards), or whether it’s the record company or movie company producing a piece of content and reaping the financial rewards.

    One feeds off the other, even if only (as Andrew rightly put it) to revolt against it.

    I don’t think the cultural evolution happens at the expense of the industry behind it as much. Hip hop samples, remixes and mashups are a process of creation. These products are then incorporated into the commercial fabric by the industry (hiphop labels are established, and the products are released commercially).

    It’s when these new creative works are consumed by the public, without paying the producer (this doesn’t have to be money, it could also be status or contact details) that everything goes awry.

    Producers of content (whether they’re independent musicians or big record labels) have a right ask for consideration when you are consuming their product. This consideration justifies their effort, and will ensure they keep on producing/financing.

    Culture and commerce are of equal importance, one can’t survive without the other. If you want to create something, you need to finance it, nothing is ever free. Even the musician, recording a song in his basement, finances his own efforts. He spends his time (and money buying the tools) on creating the product. He should be free to choose how he wants to be rewarded for it, and if that reward is money, we should respect his choice.

    My 2p,

    JB

    Oct 30th, 2008

20. Nick Booth

    JB I don’t accept your take on this.

    Cultural evolution is not something that has any sort of right. It simply is. As long as life exists at sophisticated levels that life will have a culture. It’s an inevitability. Commerce is not an inevitability. Primates certainly have culture – but I think we’d struggle to describe how they share resources as commerce.

    What is also not inevitable is that the people who massage, manage, interpret or produce what we call culture have any right to be rewarded for doing so. It just so happens that we have spent many millenia putting economic value on that activity.

    Oct 30th, 2008

21. Jim Offerman

    Culture is the master and commerce is but a slave. Whenever culture shifts, there will be those who stand to profit from it and those who’ll incur a loss – that’s not wrong or right, that’s just how it is.

    I can tell you first hand it is no fun to loose your job to a change in the status quo, but neither is it the end of the world…

    I don’t believe commerce (or anything else) can force culture to maintain the status quo, but if it could, that would most certainly be wrong.

    Oct 30th, 2008

22. Mark Badger

    Ok the answer to “Is it more important that music businesses make money, or is it more important that culture expands, innovates and grows?”

    First of all forget the concept of IT IS EITHER A or NOT A

    second try Quantum Physics

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f1NmMJ25bTY

    Any model we make does not describe the universe it describes what our brains are capable of saying at this time. All perception is gamble. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it we dont even know we’re making an interpretation most of the time.

    Oct 30th, 2008

23. Cameron Mizell

    Britney Spears wasn’t given a record deal because her label wanted to enhance our culture, and Wayne Shorter doesn’t still have a record deal because his label thinks a new album will make any money.

    Many hip hop scholars know that the commercialization of rap, starting with the Sugar Hill Gang, ultimately began unraveling true hip hop culture. Listen to the lyrics and general aesthetics of any “underground” rapper and there’s a very distinct difference from the top selling rappers.

    Just about everyone I know thinks commercial radio sucks. It’s not about finding great music, it’s about forcing the new “hits” down your earhole. On the other hand, college and independent radio plays a wider variety of lesser known artists, and probably represents a truer cross section of regional culture.

    As a musician, I don’t really care how much money the music business makes, as long as I can continue working on my music and still make a living (and maybe someday have health care… I’m in the US). If I can make music that people care about 100 years from now, I don’t have to be rich.

    Of course, if somebody is going to be making money off my music, I’d rather it be me or my family rather than a faceless company.

    Oct 30th, 2008

24. Jeroen

    @Nick Booth

    You’re right, commerce has no right to profit from culture, wrong choice of words on my part. Blame it on my non-native English

    I don’t see why, if you produce something, you have no right to be rewarded for it?

    “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.” UN Human Rights Treaties, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Part III Article 6 sub. 1

    Isn’t creating a work of culture, a job?

    If you choose to view it as a hobby, and don’t insist on remuneration for your efforts, that’s your choice. But you have that choice.

    @Cameron Mizell

    Who’s to say that Britney Spears is any less than the Beatles or the Stones? It’s a matter of taste, and therefore subjective. Objectively, a song by Britney Spears or Lil’ Wayne holds no less value than a song by the Beatles or Madvillain…

    Some companies choose to cater to large audiences (because of their scale and overhead), other companies are able to function on a smaller scale. Doesn’t make one better than the other, just different.

    I’ve played guitar for nine years, and sucked, some people pick up a guitar and shine. Doesn’t make them better than me overall, just gives them a better chance at making money from it.

    My 2p again (so that’s 4p in total, if you’re counting)…

    JB

    Oct 30th, 2008

25. Dubber

    I think I have an issue with wholesale cultural relativism.

    Some things are just better than other things. Sorry.

    Shakespeare’s plays are better than my Dad’s short stories (and I think my Dad is a really great writer). It’s not subjective, or simply opinion. It’s demonstrable fact with any amount of supporting evidence you want to call upon.

    Likewise Britney is demonstrably ‘less than’ the Beatles or Madvillain. I’ve had this argument about Aqua, if I remember correctly. Broadly speaking, it’s about influence, rather than popularity.

    Let’s not get into that too seriously just at this moment though. Focus on the question at hand…

    Oct 30th, 2008

26. Universal Indie Records

    “Many hip hop scholars know that the commercialization of rap, starting with the Sugar Hill Gang, ultimately began unraveling true hip hop culture. Listen to the lyrics and general aesthetics of any “underground” rapper and there’s a very distinct difference from the top selling rappers.”

    - totally agree with you Cameron Mizell, though I wonder how many “current’ fans even realize this.

    Oct 30th, 2008

27. Crosbie Fitch

    No-one has a right to be rewarded for their work.

    People have a right to exchange their labour and property in a free and fair market (without artificial monopoly).

    You weave a basket. You have a right to exchange it for whatever you can get for it in a market.

    You record a musical work. You have a right to exchange it in a market, whether for five baskets or a gold coin.

    300 years ago someone though it would be a good idea to grant printers a monopoly so that for any given literary work, only one printer would be legally allowed to print it. This ended the free market for printed reproductions.

    Today we are no longer a few printers with printing presses. Every single one of us can produce reproductions to our heart’s content and publishers who’ve traditionally been privileged with monopolies can at best prosecute random members of the public for their infringements.

    When only a few companies were allowed to make copies, the market price of copies was high – because of the monopoly.

    Despite that monopoly still existing, it is now pretty much ineffective.

    The monopoly was always unethical.

    In the future, we are going to have to go back to exchanging music for money in a free market – rather than copies.

    The market for copies has ended – because no-one needs to buy them any more.

    People still want music, so there’s still a market for music (and probably always will be unless we all go deaf).

    So don’t sell copies, sell music.

    You don’t have a right to be rewarded for making music, but you do have a right to exchange the music you have made for whatever you can get for it in a free market. This assumes that in such a market there are others who have something you all consider equitable, such as plenty of money.

    Art for money, money for art.

    Oct 30th, 2008

28. Cameron Mizell

    Here’s another way to approach the question. I’m an independent artist, freelance musician, and there for a small music business in myself.

    Most of the time I’m writing music for myself, trying to create a personal statement, not worrying what anybody else thinks. Once it’s recorded and available for sale, I put on a tie and sit at my computer and do some strategic, targeted marketing. My approach to this part of my work is to advance culture (that might be a delusion of grandeur, but give me time, I’m only 28). I do however, make some decent money from selling my own jazz music.

    Other times I’m writing music as a job because I need the money. This would be jingles or arrangements of holiday songs that people are paying me to create. My approach here is to always please the client, because that’s how my business makes money. If I’m able to do so with a higher level of creativity, that’s just a bonus.

    Innovating, growing, and expanding culture is a long term goal. Most businesses have to try and make their numbers for the quarter.

    If you put money first, everything else becomes a lower priority.

    If you honestly focus on cultural growth and long term influence, the rest will follow (though you risk a pissy accounting department).

    And for the record…

    Pop culture = lowest common denominator of taste. Influence, not popularity, that’s what I was getting at.

    Oct 30th, 2008

29. Christian Ward

    @Dubber, that’s one of my favourite arguments to have with people. You have tools at your disposal to ‘prove’ Shakespeare is a better writer than your Dad. You can explain why bad writing is bad. You can’t ‘prove’ the Beatles are better than Britney. (Can you?) That’s why music is such a wonderful artform.

    This is, I realise, probably another discussion for another time

    Oct 30th, 2008

30. Jim

    Personally, culture takes priority over commerce.

    If I take a macro view, however, I’m not so sure I can distinguish the two here in the U.S.

    Friends from other countries seem to be better at separating the two (and from separating life from work, for that matter).

    Oct 30th, 2008

31. Marc Vermut

    @Crosbie. Disagree with you regarding the publisher example. That is the artist (writer in this case) exchanging property for some value. It is not the case that a publisher has a monopoly on any given title just because.

    It is the result of the author of that work assigning the rights to that publisher to print the work in a specific form. That’s why titles may be printed by different publishers over time.

    The real underlying question is how long does the author of the work have the right to limit the usage and consumption of that work. And, more specifically to Andrew’s point about culture being built on the past, used as a base or reference in a derivative work without hindrance. And, as a sidebar, what mechanisms are in place to work on “orphaned” works when it’s an opt-in, not opt-out system and authors can disappear.

    Oct 30th, 2008

32. Crosbie Fitch

    > It is the result of the author of that work assigning the
    > rights to that publisher to print the work in a specific
    > form. That’s why titles may be printed by different
    > publishers over time.

    The publisher’s monopoly is per work. This privilege must therefore be attached to the work from the moment of its creation, and given the author is the creator, the author is the initial possessor of this privilege (although generally impotent to exercise it, and in need of a publisher to realise its value through commercial exploitation).

    This transferable privilege is not an authorial right (as otherwise it would be natural and inalienable), so the author does not ‘assign their rights’, but provides a license or transfers their copyright entire (reversion notwithstanding).

    > The real underlying question is how long does the
    > author of the work have the right to limit the usage
    > and consumption of that work.

    Irrespective of copyright, the author naturally retains exclusive rights to their works for as long as they live, or until they decide any work need no longer remain exclusive to them, i.e. they transfer or communicate it to others.

    Oct 30th, 2008

33. J

    Maybe I read the posting too fast but I didn’t see the point of view I have on this so forgive me if I’m repeating something…

    Personally, I agree with Dubber that they are not mutually exclusive. I think the CREATOR of the works should have right of refusal.

    My group recently did a demo project where we used a companies media for what we wanted to do (typically everything we do is original but this was an exception because of the nature of the situation-we have made no profit off it, btw) and in an interview recently when asked I stated what I wrote above. The interviewer asked about the inherent contradiction and I told him that if the artist told me that he didn’t like or appreciate what I did that I would take it down. I followed with ‘if someone took my music and used it on a ‘kiddie porn’ sound track or something, I’d want to sue the bastard.’

    It may seem like an extreme example but it does kind of suck that no one seems to want to acknowledge that the artist does deserve SOME control over what they did. Obviously, when it gets into legal things, this all potentially goes south with the thousand who unknowingly or knowingly sign their rights away, but the alternative-where you put time and energy into creating something and you have NO recourse when it is misrepresented-is a far worse situation in my mind.

    Please note if you chose to respond that I’m talking about the artist having the OPTION-not about someone suing, punishing, or going after anyone wily-nilly. I have yet to meet an artist who’s happy to have their work taken out of context to their detriment-and of course I’ve met those who’s work out of context led to their benefit-I just think its THEIR choice.

    J

    Oct 30th, 2008

34. steve à gilbert

    I have some fresh ideas about all of this.

    Copyright law needs to reflect how things are “now,” with recorded music, ie: how the music came to be, and how they will change when they are combined with new ideas. Copyright law was written about lyrics and music, because that’s how the employers and/or the writers precieved things. Nothing could be copywritten except what could be written down.

    Copyright law should become what goes into creating (and hopefuly marketing) the soundfile. Only that can guarantee both creators and investors their piece of the pie, is etched in stone. And then that info could become public knowledge so that it can’t be changed or re-routed. For some reason the music business hides all it’s earnings, as opposed to what the film insustry does. The film industry uses the money it makes as bragging rights. The music business could do the same thing, and it swould generate a whole new line of competitive thinking, that would be good for artists and investors in that art.

    If there was a system that could automatically account for a derivative music composition (like HipHop) stemming from someone else’s earlier music, then things would run a lot more smoothly. I think the technology already exists, and it’s just a matter of time before someone puts together a system that reflects today’s business of music.

    If new music works, were regarded as co-writes, instead of music that threatens pre-existing publishing revenues, this could be much easier.

    We could start with changing how songs are copywritten. Instead of registering them with congress, they should be regarded as copywritten as a soundfile, the first time they leave the originators computer. The metadata becomes the copyright info. And it has to be a read only file, or one that can be read and added to, not edited.

    Dubber, you are the right man to spear head this discussion. You’ll be granted a knighthood, if you can come up with a new and fair system, that the entire world adopts.

    Oct 30th, 2008

35. steve à gilbert

    yeesh typos, sorry about my last comment, I get excited about this stuff!

    One more thing – is there an ethical difference between

    a guitar player learning how to play a particularly cool guitar lick (like Smoke on the Water), and then writing it into a new song and

    that same guitar player, sampling the original soundfile from a Deep Purple’s CD and including it in his new song?

    What if he’s willing to give the original songwriter/band, credit and a portion of this new income stream?

    Oct 30th, 2008

36. Marc Vermut

    @Crosbie Perhaps it is that we operate in different countries and different IP environments, but I was simply referring to the fact that if the author of the work

    > naturally retains exclusive rights to their works for as
    > long as they live, or until they decide any work need no
    > longer remain exclusive to them, i.e. they transfer or
    > communicate it to others.”

    then I don’t understand what the issue with the publisher is. Especially since authors can self-distribute in today’s environment. Also, at least with respect to film, the owner of copyright is able to bifurcate the publishers or distributors by distribution platform.

    I don’t think the discussion is about actual copyright and ownership and control, but the underlying theory.

    Most importantly, the point that you make (copied above) is the crux of Andrew’s question posted here. Should there be a limit to the period or to the types of usage surrounding works of art (lower case) so as not to impinge upon the growth of culture (yes, it’s all a little high falutin’ but whatever)?

    Oct 30th, 2008

37. Crosbie Fitch

    @J: You could also have used an example of your music used in political or advertising campaign.

    The issue here is not that your music has been reproduced or distributed without a copyright license, but that there is an implication that you have endorsed the message that your music is being used to support.

    This is a misrepresentation or falsehood, and should be rectified by the user of your work making it clear that no such endorsement exists.

    Another form of misrepresentation is plagiarism. This again is nothing to do with copyright.

    Copyright is a mercantile privilege, a reproduction monopoly, and should be abolished. However, this doesn’t affect an author’s natural rights, i.e. to life, privacy, and truth (aka moral rights).

    So, cultural freedom doesn’t mean it’s open season for plagiarism and other forms of misattribution and misrepresentation. Nor any other rights violation for that matter.

    The question of our times is only whether publishers should still have the reproduction monopoly we call copyright – given it is so plainly unethical, ineffective and anachronistic.

    Oct 30th, 2008

38. J

    @Crosbie Fitch-

    Agreed-and I think you came up with a far better example, being that this has happened very recently with a number of bands.

    I think it becomes a pretty fine line. I think where sampling ended up wasn’t a horrible place-i.e. come up with some place where the two parties can come to some sort of agreement-financial or otherwise-like a license. But, like patents on Intellectual property, where some legal organizations buy them up and ‘lie in wait’ to sue, it can become total BS. It all comes back to the same thing though-who is getting paid. Whether there is profit or direct profit motivation from the user of the works has to be a consideration.

    For a DJ on the radio or giving away mix tapes to there friends? I can’t see a reason to go legal. Now a DJ SELLING mixes? That’s not the same.

    Oct 30th, 2008

39. Mark

    “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

    Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution detailing the powers and responsibilities of the Congress.

    This is essentially the basis of all intellectual property law (sans trademark law, which deals with identification issues rather than actual content).

    Note that it says “Promote the Progress…” not “Promote the Profitability…”.

    Under the current setting, copyright (and by extension patents) should promote actual progress first, and profit second. Though with the current setting, both fail. Copyright (specifically the DMCA) is being horribly abused and patents are creating a minefield to the point where it is impossible to make any significantly complex product without unwittingly stepping on half a dozen patents in the process.

    “Some things are just better than other things. Sorry. ”

    On this, I disagree. There is no definitive, quantitative way to prove beyond doubt that Shakespeare is better than your dad and Beatles are better than Brittney Spears. All we have are scholars telling us what’s better based on largely subjective measures like “literary merit” that are only vaguely defined.

    Ultimately, “better” depends on what your looking for in art.

    Oct 31st, 2008

40. Crosbie Fitch

    @Marc,

    > then I don’t understand what the issue with the publisher is.

    The issue with the publisher is that they’ve been granted a monopoly (attached to works) in order to incentivise them to fund the production and publication of printed reproductions of those works, effectively to finance the release and dissemination of works from the exclusive rights of their authors into the public domain.

    > Especially since authors can self-distribute in today’s
    > environment.

    Quite. Given that there is no longer a large investment involved in tooling up for the reproduction of an intellectual work, nor the expense of distribution and retail logistics, there is no longer even a feeble excuse to sanction a monopoly.

    > Most importantly, the point that you make (copied above) is
    > the crux of Andrew’s question posted here. Should there be a
    > limit to the period or to the types of usage surrounding
    > works of art (lower case) so as not to impinge upon the
    > growth of culture (yes, it’s all a little high falutin’ but whatever)?

    An author’s exclusive rights are naturally limited by the author’s lifespan. These take priority over any cultural considerations. If the author’s market cannot persuade the author to release certain of their works within that time, that’s fine. The market will simply have to wait and see if the inheritors of the author’s estate can be persuaded.

    However, once an author distributes (publishes) a work then their exclusive rights over that work cease. Today the privilege of copyright remains, which grants the publisher (author/assign) a monopoly over reproduction and public performance (putting it simply), a monopoly to be prosecuted by the publisher – not the state. Instead of diminishing as the economics of reproduction and distribution technologies improved, the duration of this monopoly has been steadily extended over the years. In this digital age the monopoly should no longer have any duration at all – indeed, it should be abolished. Once a work is voluntarily released to the public (whether as promotional gift or via lucrative sale), there should be no commercial encumbrance whatsoever. The work is free to be exchanged, shared, utilised, performed, incorporated, transformed, reproduced, etc.

    Nevertheless, a lack of monopoly doesn’t derogate from rights that may be impacted by speech or intellectual works. Published works still cannot incite violence/hatred, violate anyone’s privacy (candid photos), nor impair the truth (plagiarism, misrepresentation, impairment of integrity, etc.).

    The only thing that unnaturally impinges upon our cultural liberty and commonwealth today is the monopoly of copyright. When our children are being prosecuted for natural cultural exchange, because this is in conflict with a publisher’s unnatural monopoly, then it should be pretty clear where the solution lies. The publishers (being immortal and psychopathic corporations) will tell you that their monopoly needs reinforcement, that our children need stricter education. In support of this they will also attempt to persuade authors that they can only be paid by publishers, because no reader would willingly wish to pay them directly…

    Oct 31st, 2008

41. Crosbie Fitch

    @J:

    > For a DJ on the radio or giving away mix tapes to there
    > friends? I can’t see a reason to go legal. Now a DJ SELLING
    > mixes? That’s not the same.

    Yesterday:
    1) Musician sells song to record label for $10k.
    2) Record label pays for it to be given away on the radio (promotion), sells copies (thanks to a monopoly).
    3) People share the music and infringe copyright.
    4) The label worries, but the musician does not – the musician has been paid.

    Today:
    1) Musician signs contract with record label, gets advance, sings songs.
    2) Record label pays for them to be given away on the radio (promotion), sells copies (thanks to a monopoly).
    3) People share the music and infringe copyright.
    4) The label worries, and so does the musician – losses due to piracy have been put on the balance sheet. Label breaks even. Musician in debt.

    Tomorrow:
    1) Musician sells song to audience for $10k.
    2) At audience’s expense it is shared on the Internet (no monopoly). Some people sell CDs, vinyl pressings, etc. (no royalty)
    3) People share the music and don’t infringe copyright because it has been abolished.
    4) The audience and musician are happy – the musician has been paid, the audience has their music. The record label has gone out of business.

    If a musician has been paid for their music, why on earth are they going to begrudge another musician or DJ getting paid for their remix of it? Every musician and DJ has a right to exchange their labour in a free market.

    Oct 31st, 2008

42. Crosbie Fitch

    @Mark:

    > “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
    > securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
    > exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
    >
    > Note that it says “Promote the Progress…” not “Promote the
    > Profitability…”.

    You’ve been distracted.

    What is far more important to note is that the US constitution is about securing authors’ and inventors’ exclusive rights, not granting publishers and manufacturers monopolies over the reproduction and use of their writings and designs.

    The unconstitutional legislation that granted such monopolies arrived 3 years after the ink had dried on the constitution, and it granted those monopolies as a means of both securing authors’/inventors’ exclusive rights AND providing an incentive to deliver those writings and designs to the public.

    The monopolies have no constitutional sanction. The constitution only grants the state power to secure exclusive rights – not for the state to grant monopolies and other mercantile privileges.

    Oct 31st, 2008

43. Crosbie Fitch

    @Steve à Gilbert:

    > is there an ethical difference between a guitar player learning
    > how to play a particularly cool guitar lick (like Smoke on the
    > Water), and then writing it into a new song and that same guitar
    > player, sampling the original soundfile from a Deep Purple’s CD
    > and including it in his new song?

    As long as the guitar player does not misrepresent his work as original then both cases are quite ethical, so there’s no ethical difference.

    > What if he’s willing to give the original songwriter/band, credit

    The guitar player is to be applauded for giving credit to the artists whose work they build upon. This will earn them all respect from each other and their audiences.

    > and a portion of this new income stream?

    Where one artist enjoys or benefits from the published work of another they are likely to be highly encouraged to commission further work from them. This will be in both their interests.

    Oct 31st, 2008

44. Ruth Daniel

    In the words of Tony Wilson, “You either make money, or you make history.”

    The Fall, John Cooper-Clarke, Factory Records never made loads of money and perhaps this adds to why they are so cool. Most of the coolest stuff, in my opinion, never made much money – because it was never massively commercialised, it never hit the mainstream. Even punk was commercialised – you can buy a Sex Pistols t-shirt for £175 from Selfridges! Once you commercialise something, you change what it is/was about, it obscures the cultural impact.

    Oct 31st, 2008

45. J

    @Crosbie Fitch

    >Yesterday:
    >1) Musician sells song to record label for $10k.
    >2) Record label pays for it to be given away on the radio (promotion), >sells copies (thanks to a monopoly).
    >3) People share the music and infringe copyright.
    >4) The label worries, but the musician does not – the musician has been >paid.

    Here’s my issue with scenario 1:

    Why is it ok for the DJ to make a profit off your hard work? If the DJ wants to absorb the cost of CD, packaging, etc and lose money themselves, that’s fine, but if they sell your product at a profit, that’s a problem to me.

    J

    Oct 31st, 2008

46. Crosbie Fitch

    @J:

    > Why is it ok for the DJ to make a profit off your hard work?
    > If the DJ wants to absorb the cost of CD, packaging, etc and
    > lose money themselves, that’s fine, but if they sell your
    > product at a profit, that’s a problem to me.

    If a DJ buys your work for $10, adds $10 of value to it (which costs them $1), and then sells it for $20, the $9 profit they’ve made is entirely down to them.

    If the DJ adds no value, but simply finds someone willing to pay $20, for what cost them $10, then the $10 profit is still also entirely down to them – for finding someone you did not have time or energy to find.

    A similar thing happens with concert tickets. You can sell them for $10, but someone else with time and effort can find someone who’ll buy them for $20.

    The same thing can happen with baskets. You can make a basket for $1+labour, sell it for $10, and the purchaser can resell it for $20.

    There’s nothing stopping you refusing to sell something at $10, and instead sell it at $20 in the first place. You may have to wait longer and/or search harder before you find a similar number of purchasers. Even so, there may still be some people willing to pay $30. Figuring out the price that maximises your revenue can be tricky. You can even start with a high price and then lower it. Whatever price you choose, unless it’s too high, someone will always find someone who’ll pay more (someone you couldn’t find). This isn’t unfair or unethical, it’s just the way the market works. Different people have different needs, resources, and values.

    People have been exchanging their labour in a free market for aeons. People have also been profiting from each other’s hard work for aeons.

    The idea of forbidding anyone from selling one’s work for a higher price than they paid for it may be attractive to some, but no-one’s really been successful in implementing it. Even if it was possible, it’s doubtful that such a vendor would be more successful in the marketplace than vendors who permitted their purchasers to profit from their work.

    On the other hand, if one has copyright’s privilege in being able to prosecute those who manufacture copies without permission, then perhaps one can attempt to permit manufacture of copies only if sold at a specific price (probably with a specific royalty). However, bear in mind that copyright is a privilege to be prosecuted by the copyright holder. The state will not police everyone’s premises and marketplaces on the copyright holder’s behalf to ensure that all copies are sold strictly according to the holder’s arbitrary pricing regulations.

    Given that copyright is no longer effective (it is no longer feasible for the copyright holder to prosecute most illicit copy manufacturers), it’s probably a bit late to explore ‘fixed pricing’ copyright based revenue models.

    I suggest musicians sell their music for the highest price the market will bear (over a time the musician can bear), and simply congratulate anyone who can resell it – whether they add value or not. Life’s too short to begrudge others making a profit on one’s published works.

    Oct 31st, 2008

47. J

    @Crosbie Fitch-

    If selling your music at the highest price the market will bear worked we wouldn’t be having this conversation. No ones trying to stop commerce, but the person who created the product deserve some reward.

    Obviously value is subjective, you can’t stop anyone from setting whatever price they want on a product-but simply put-it’s one thing to plant something, water it, grow it and sell it to recover cost, time and labor. It’s another thing to walk over to someone who did that, buy it or steal it from them and sell it at a profit.

    You can call it whatever you want, but no one wants to be on the receiving end of that scenario. If the DJ loves music the way us musicians are supposed to love music, then just incur the cost the way fans expect us too. If the label is hooking them up for promo, that’s something entirely different.

    Oct 31st, 2008

48. Brian Henry

    Yes, property rights should take precedence over a cultural and media shift, but the cultural/media shift drives the future evolution and priority placed upon property rights a broader context.

    Property rights, be it, intellectual, physical, mineral, personal or financial, are the basis for all economics. The transfer of these rights augmented by human and financial capital, is the means by which all revenue is generated. The enforcement of these rights is the primary responsibility of all government. The absence of enforcement is anarchy and the method by which rights are enforced is the foundation of every political ideology and government since the beginning of recorded history.

    Ultimately Property rights are controlled by the sovereign governing body over the population and territory under their rule.

    It is the culture’s responsibility to exert their power and influence to direct the governing body to adjust property rights as needed to reflect the will and desire of the people. Obviously many property rights have been unjustly enforced and usurped historically, be it through slavery, industrial pollution, dictatorships, western expansion, genocide what have you.

    In the case of Media/Entertainment, I think that it is our duty, as citizens, Entertainment professionals, creators, and consumers to enforce as well as change these rights, given technological and cultural changes, in a manner in which protects our individual property rights, intellectual and otherwise, for the future. Abandoning these rights completely or simply disregarding them has much broader implications that will lead us further down a path of economic hardship and ruin.

    Oct 31st, 2008

49. Crosbie Fitch

    @J:

    > If selling your music at the highest price the market will
    > bear worked we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    Well, actually, such a free market was abandoned in 1710 given the allure to the crown and publishing industry of control over the printing press.

    We are only just beginning to once again dabble in such a free market (given copyright is no longer effective).

    The (monopoly)free software industry has been going for a few years now, but musicians and their audiences are only just dipping their toes in the water of a marketplace without the assistance of copyright and without the intermediation of record labels geared up to exploit it.

    > No ones trying to stop commerce, but the person who created
    > the product deserve some reward.

    Unfortunately, no. A basket maker does not deserve a reward for making baskets, nor does a musician deserve a reward for making music.

    If someone offers a reward, then the person who wins it could be said to deserve it, but if no-one offers a reward, no one can be deserving.

    It’s up to each crafstman and each artist to research the market if they wish to be rewarded for their labour, and up to them to find people agreeable to exchange an equitable reward for their work.

    > Obviously value is subjective, you can’t stop anyone from
    > setting whatever price they want on a product-but simply
    > put-it’s one thing to plant something, water it, grow it and
    > sell it to recover cost, time and labor. It’s another thing
    > to walk over to someone who did that, buy it or steal it from
    > them and sell it at a profit.

    Buying something and selling it for a profit is as I said earlier, quite natural, and the way things have worked for aeons.

    As for stealing something, theft has also been recognised as a natural rights violation for as long as people have been buying and selling, so this is wrong from the outset. The subsequent sale simply compounds the crime – it would be wrong even to sell stolen goods at a loss.

    Oct 31st, 2008

50. J

    @Crosbie Fitch

    > No ones trying to stop commerce, but the person who created
    > the product deserve some reward.

    >Unfortunately, no. A basket maker does not deserve a reward for making >baskets, nor does a musician deserve a reward for making music.

    Have to agree to disagree. I don’t accept that point on any level.

    >It’s up to each crafstman and each artist to research the market if >they wish to be rewarded for their labour, and up to them to find >people agreeable to exchange an equitable reward for their work.

    Totally agree-but it sounds like-or maybe I’m misunderstanding you-that you aren’t assigning a value to it anyway so how would someone argue for compensation when the response is that they deserve no credit or reward for their work?

    >Buying something and selling it for a profit is as I said earlier, quite >natural, and the way things have worked for aeons.

    >As for stealing something, theft has also been recognised as a >natural rights violation for as long as people have been buying and >selling, so this is wrong from the outset. The subsequent sale simply >compounds the crime – it would be wrong even to sell stolen goods at >a loss.

    From my perspective, this is a whole different conversation, so I’ll leave that alone.

    Oct 31st, 2008

51. Crosbie Fitch

    @J:

    > Totally agree-but it sounds like-or maybe I’m
    > misunderstanding you-that you aren’t assigning a value to it
    > anyway so how would someone argue for compensation when the
    > response is that they deserve no credit or reward for their work?

    People deserve the reward they OBTAIN in exchange for their labour. They do not deserve reward simply for their labour. If no-one wants to reward it, it doesn’t deserve a reward.

    I may take several days (and some expense in feeding a pair of oxen) to plough a field, but I do not deserve reward for this labour.

    If, on the other hand, I find a farmer who is willing to offer me an agreeable reward in exchange for my labour in ploughing his field, and I make that exchange and obtain his reward for my labour, THEN I deserve the reward (whatever it is, given I found it agreeable).

    Perversely, if no-one offers a reward for my labour, but I nevertheless plough some common ground, that doesn’t mean I deserve a reward. This remains the case even if others profit from my work by grazing their cattle upon the superior grass that grows. I still cannot demand a share when they sell their cattle based upon my claim that I deserve reward for my labour. Nevertheless I might persuade them to reward me for ploughing it again the following year – a reward proportional to their valuation of the improvement my ploughing makes (but then I may find a more agreeable offer elsewhere).

    Labour is exchanged by agreement, not unilaterally.

    Oct 31st, 2008

52. J

    @Crosbie Fitch

    Ok-I’m not saying that just because you wrote a song that people should hand you cash. I am saying that there is a certain level of expectation that can and should be met in a ‘civil’ society.

    If a band plays a show at a club and ask for $’X', people are generally expected to pay. As long as they promote the show correctly and/or have worthwhile promotion, they can make a profit.

    What I think I’m hearing from you is that there’s nothing wrong with someone sneaking in through the window and not paying if the band/club doesn’t provide adequate security.

    Am I misunderstand your perspective?

    Oct 31st, 2008

53. Crosbie Fitch

    @J:

    > If a band plays a show at a club and ask for $’X', people are
    > generally expected to pay.

    I can’t say I’ve been to many, but I’ve never been to a club where after playing, a band member walks round with a hat demanding $X. They may well have passed around a hat and people pay what they want, or the club may have sold tickets at $X in advance of the event, but enforced collection of a set fee is something I’d only expect the likes of large collection societies to resort to, i.e. ASCAP/BMI/PRS/MCPS/etc.

    > As long as they promote the show
    > correctly and/or have worthwhile promotion, they can make a profit.

    Yes, there’s nothing wrong with a band pursuing, expecting, and making a profit, even based upon another band’s work, but no-one is entitled to a profit, let alone a reward, unless this has been agreed with those willing to provide it.

    > What I think I’m hearing from you is that there’s nothing
    > wrong with someone sneaking in through the window and not
    > paying if the band/club doesn’t provide adequate security.
    >
    > Am I misunderstand your perspective?

    It sounds like it. Burglary is clearly a privacy violation – adequate security or not.

    Oct 31st, 2008

54. J

    @Crosbie Fitch

    Ok-good-I’m happy know I’m wrong and misunderstanding you.

    > If a band plays a show at a club and ask for $’X’, people are
    > generally expected to pay.

    Well, usually you pay at the door, or buy the ticket elsewhere, just to be clear.

    >Yes, there’s nothing wrong with a band pursuing, expecting, and >making a profit, even based upon another band’s work, but no-one is >entitled to a profit, let alone a reward, unless this has been agreed >with those willing to provide it.

    Ok, I feel like we’re getting closer to the same page. I’m glad you used the word ‘entitled’ because that’s my general feeling about many of the people who I talk to about this issue. Many seem to feel ‘just because they want something, they should have it.’ One guy even said ‘If you don’t want something copied, don’t put it out.’ I actually don’t have a whole lot of arguments with people about this stuff-I just find it fascinating how people have this bizarre attitude about it all…

    To be clear-the cat’s out of the bag. I don’t support what the labels did or their price gouging, not do I support the people I’ve met who have gigs of music they opted to download when they could have paid for some of it. That sense of entitlement, to my mind, is offensive.

    I think it’s fairly basic to say ‘the ONLY value is the current market value’ because the reality of that is that stealing is free (which is why I asked about your perspective-maybe I took too many steps to my conclusion).

    So to move the conversation forward, and so you understand what I mean-I don’t think that ANYONE is entitled to payment just because they did ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’-the process is much more involved than that. I do think however that their need to be SOME understanding of what is someone’s creation and what isn’t (this is, perhaps, where we differ),and that they do have SOME rights when it comes to that.

    The most interesting thing about all of this is that it is an artifact of digital media-being able to make a perfect copy with degradation. I think we both understand that if you put your jacket down, that when you come back to it, someone should not be standing there trying to sell it to someone else. Digital, to some degree, makes that possible.

    Oct 31st, 2008

55. J

    @Crosbie Fitch

    …and sense we are kind of derailing the topic-feel free to email direct if you want to continue in private-or we can keep it here.

    J

    Oct 31st, 2008

56. Crosbie Fitch

    Let’s wait for our host Andrew Dubber to tell us to take our conversational comments elsewhere, if he feels they are no longer germane or interesting, etc.

    Oct 31st, 2008

57. Dubber

    This is exactly the sort of conversation people should be having here on New Music Strategies. Anyone else who wants to join in – or take the conversation in new directions should always feel free.

    Oct 31st, 2008

58. J

    Thanks Andrew!

    Here’s potentially a side note…

    I won’t get too much into it, but one media company that produces digital films (let’s just call them that…;-) ) has started a program where you buy into a point system and each movie/scene has a set price. Some of the more popular ones cost more (current market value?) other’s, don’t. It strikes me as an interesting way to deal with digital media-attempting to create scarcity. It doesn’t stop copying of course, but its different than most things I’ve seen…

    J

    Oct 31st, 2008

59. Crosbie Fitch

    @J:

    > > If a band plays a show at a club and ask for $’X’, people are
    > > generally expected to pay.
    >
    > Well, usually you pay at the door, or buy the ticket
    > elsewhere, just to be clear.

    I must admit I once went to a pole dancing club where there was a near-statutory fee requested and collected from each member of the audience after each dancer. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this practice had been derived from clubs in the US, where audiences in attendance of a particular band’s set would be presumed to have enjoyed it and thus liable for a set fee. That might be a reasonable alternative to an entrance fee, but I’m not sure it would go down too well (some people might not enjoy a particular band).

    > One guy even said ‘If you don’t want something copied, don’t put it out.’

    That sounds like reasonable advice to me. If you don’t want the public (including other artists) to share and build upon your work, don’t deliver it to them – don’t publish it.

    > I think it’s fairly basic to say ‘the ONLY value is the
    > current market value’ because the reality of that is that
    > stealing is free (which is why I asked about your
    > perspective-maybe I took too many steps to my conclusion).

    The value of art is in the eye of the beholder, and this being subjective will change from person to person, and day to day. There is a current market value, but this isn’t necessarily the same as the market value the following day or year.

    No-one is entitled to steal anyone’s intellectual property, and anyone in receipt of stolen copies should return them (or destroy them if the owner prefers). Intellectual property theft is the unauthorised removal or communication of intellectual works from their owner’s private premises (including copies manufactured thereon).

    However, for people who have purchased an artist’s intellectual work, a musician’s music, there should be no reproduction monopoly (as I have indicated several times in preceding posts), and as we are finding today, there can be no effective reproduction monopoly.

    > So to move the conversation forward, and so you understand
    > what I mean-I don’t think that ANYONE is entitled to payment
    > just because they did ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’-the process is much
    > more involved than that.

    Jolly good.

    > I do think however that their need
    > to be SOME understanding of what is someone’s creation and
    > what isn’t (this is, perhaps, where we differ),and that they
    > do have SOME rights when it comes to that.

    Absolutely. The truth concerning an author’s words, their meaning, context and authorship, is vitally important. Authors have rights irrespective of monopolies. Such rights are possessed by all artists, musicians, photographers, inventors, programmers, etc.

    > The most interesting thing about all of this is that it is an
    > artifact of digital media-being able to make a perfect copy
    > with degradation.

    Digital technologies mean that copies can be made more cheaply and of high quality.

    That the copy can be indistinguishable from the original is good, but the real revolution is that everyone can mass produce and communicate/distribute their own copies at negligible expense. This is what is rendering the monopoly of copyright redundant. If perfect copies were possible but expensive, there would be no revolution.

    > I think we both understand that if you put
    > your jacket down, that when you come back to it, someone
    > should not be standing there trying to sell it to someone
    > else. Digital, to some degree, makes that possible.

    I don’t think it does.

    If you make a digital recording of your music, this doesn’t necessarily make it easier for anyone to steal it from you and sell it to anyone else.

    Once you’ve sold your digital recording to your audience for $10,000 (if you have an audience a thousand strong each willing to exchange your music for $10 each), then of course it’s no longer exclusively your intellectual property, but that of your audience too. As long as no misrepresentation occurs, any one of them can use it in a movie or remix it, and resell it.

    Just as before, when you sold your music to a record label, the label could also do these things.

    The label sold copies (necessarily reliant upon a reproduction monopoly), and sold licenses that permitted others to make copies.

    The label can’t do this any more.

    You have to sell your music to your audience directly.

    If your label can’t sell copies, you can’t sell copies either. You have to sell your music to your audience instead, and your audience behaves as if they are your new record label.

    Oct 31st, 2008

60. J

    Good points all around. We stand in agreement.

    Oct 31st, 2008

61. Nick Booth

    phew!

    Oct 31st, 2008

62. stan

    so with this argument that music is free and the person that wrote the song is NOT entitled to making a living, because the “industry” sucks and makes enough money. well can I go into a gas station and take free gas or mc donalds, because they sold enough? the answer is NO. just because technology makes it easy to steal, doesn’t mean stealing is right. it cost me money to make music and you feel it should be free? i like beer, but i still have to buy it. want free music? make your own. how about this? what if your boss at work asked you to work for free…everday, what would you say? sure or G.F.Y? me thinks GFY would be the common reply.

    Oct 31st, 2008

63. JACK

    The question is unrealistic and can’t be answered. Eliminating self interest it the sticking point. Self interest can not be eliminated here any more than asking a farmer who grows his crops for his family to survive and hungry neighbors without food to eliminate theirs. Once you take self interest out of the equation the question is actually silly and selfish. If someone creates something and someone else wants it they should pay or barter. Not doing so will bring cultural change that would devestate society as we know it.

    Oct 31st, 2008

64. J

    @Stan-

    Yes-many agree but the world seems not to. Did you notice that everything you mentioned was a physical object or a task? The crux of the issue is that digital mediums have destroyed the way physical mediums used to control distribution…

    Nov 1st, 2008

65. Dubber

    At the risk of kicking off a flame war…

    I’m not sure how it’s happened, but people have somehow got it into their heads that copyright infringement is “theft”. They are radically different things by definition, and by law. You may ‘feel’ as if you have been stolen from when people copy your work, but the fact is that you haven’t.

    Making unauthorised copies of a recording is not ’stealing music’ any more than photocopying a book is ’stealing language’.

    You have every right to feel angry about it, and you may even be able to demonstrate that it has impeded your ability to earn a living in the way you would like – but it is NOT theft.

    Calling copyright infringement ‘theft’ is as absurd and as counter-productive to the discussion as is calling the major record labels ‘the music industry’. It’s common to do so, but both ideas originate from industry PR, and not from any basis in fact or any understanding of what the terms mean.

    Stan may tell me to GFM, but the premise on which his argument is based is utterly flawed. Sorry.

    Nov 1st, 2008

66. Nick Booth

    If I create something utterly useless can I demand payment for my time? Artists often do that – then moan!

    Nov 1st, 2008

67. Dubber

    Does something have to be “useful” to have value now? Can’t things just be aesthetically beautiful? Or do they have to ‘do’ something?

    

    Nov 1st, 2008

68. J

    Correct…! I think it just comes from the idea of piracy…

    I contributed to derailing things and feel like I didn’t get to the original point of the board-whether culture precedes copyright…the answer for me has to be case by case…kind of a cop out.

    J

    Nov 1st, 2008

69. Dubber

    ‘Case by case’ is the correct answer to pretty much everything in my book, J – just look at my next post…

    Nov 1st, 2008

70. Christopher Woods

    @dubber… Unfortunately, while I agree with you regarding the semantics, that’s all most people regard them as – semantics.

    I do not equate infringement of copyright to theft. Infringement of music copyrights is a civil matter, not a criminal one. However, it is impossible to separate the emotive language and concepts from an industry so widespread and influential on everybody’s lives – so until someone conclusively proves that it’s not harming someone in some way, even if you are copying or downloading a track for which you have not been granted the appropriate licence to acquire, I think many (both consumers and originators) will still view downloading music = stealing = theft.

    And of course, you’re going to have musicians who take a much more personally-oriented view of this infringement != theft argument, as well as those who will sit and argue the toss all day and all night. I’m more of a pragmatist; I’ve downloaded music which I shouldn’t, by rights, have access to, but that music has either acted like a spur to make me buy more of that genre or more of that artist (it took me almost a year to buy KT Tunstall’s first album, but I bought the deluxe version of the second one as soon as it came out) – or it confirms to me that I made the right choice in that case by auditioning the music before I shelled out my money for it.

    But then again, I still go into record shops once in a while and stand listening to stacks of twelve inches before I buy £60 worth of them – it’s the attitude of appreciation towards investing in worthwhile music which has affected the industry far more than widespread infringement of copyrights. As has been discussed many times before, it’s the loss (or discarding) of a worthwhile filter for all that music which is driving people to not pay for the stuff.

    Part of me feels refreshed watching an entire industry scrabble around trying to gain new footing and make some serious moola. It was too sedentary before and it was its downfall; hopefully when the labels and the distributors finally come to a decent workable consensus which benefits the consumer as much as it does the authors and copyright owners, we’ll finally witness some of these new revenue streams come to fruition.

    But in the meantime, going back to my original point, I think the argument that infringement != theft is a done deal. The problem is that the bodies representing the industry generally do not adopt this as their partyline – so whatever people working in the industry privately believe, as long as their representative organisations (IFPI, BPI for the UK, AIM for the indies etc) we will not get anywhere with this discussion.

    Time to call out the representative bodies on this one and have a real, no-holds-barred discussion dropping the rhetoric?

    How many more years of decreasing revenues do you think it will take for these bodies to bow to public pressure and formally adopt a new tack when approaching and publicising these kinds of topics? I think three to five years, tops.

    Nov 1st, 2008

71. Christopher Woods

    And of course, just thought I’d make the point that all of my statements (sweeping or otherwise) are solely my own personal opinions as held at the time of writing. They are, like any opinions, subject to change in the future (providing there’s a convincing reason for me to change my mind!) – my arguments are based on all evidence in the public domain thus far (and also everything I have seen, heard or experienced related to the music industry), with a healthy dose of cynicism and pragmatism added to the mix before it’s brought to a simmer.

    In the future, the music industry will have to satisfy the music fan’s needs, and transparently. This is perhaps the biggest issue for the industry at the moment, and needs them all to seriously change their mindset regarding the spread, consumption and sharing of digital media. Technology is still playing catchup with society in this regard, and I’d wager that the tech and music industries (…mainly the music industry) has already held it up more than a few times with what amounts to no more than inconvenient intermediary steps.

    My POV is that of a tech-savvy consumer who is willing to pay a fair amount for a fair product, but also someone who will not tolerate any kind of stupidity or unnecessary barriers between them and their consumption and enjoyment of music. But maybe copyright law has to change as well? Maybe consumers’ expectations have to change? Maybe artists’ preconceptions or ideals have to change? Maybe society needs a wake-up kick up the arse too?

    I can sense a blog post of my own coming out of all this thinking.

    Nov 1st, 2008

72. Dubber

    Then it was worth while. Look forward to the post…

    Oh, and copyright law DOES need to change as well. No two ways about it. It is entirely broken, and not fit for purpose for the current media environment.

    Nov 1st, 2008

73. stan

    in regards to a comment directed at me above.

    so because it’s art i.e created then everyone is entitled to it for free?
    next time i go to an art museum i will take a rembrandt. he’s dead and so many people paid way too much for a painting over these many years.

    in the “old days” record companies screwed the writer/musician/artist, now society feels it can do the same? why? because you can?

    yes people borrowed records or books in the past,but never have they “redistributed” items on such a large scale therefore devalueing the original item. if i made a copy of led zep 1 on a crappy cassette somebody may have said this is good enough,but more often than not, i think they would buy a copy, that being said, somebody buying 1 cd and then distributing it over the net in nearly the same quality as the original ( for free) doesn’t make the consumer want to buy the original product. why buy the cow…

    i don’t understand why you think ripping off artists is a good thing?
    if i know that 30,000 people have my music,but i still can’t buy a pack of guitar strings etc how is that good for me? name recognition?
    do you realize touring is a loss now a days? artists make money off of product that they themselves created.

    i know i shouldn’t take this personally.but as an artist who struggles to make sales and repay my debt to a small label, while folks feel my songs should be “free” seems pretty unfair.

    here is a small breakdown for you. i want to sell my cd at a reasonable price of $10, so i do, out of that $10 i have to give the label $7.50, until my cost to make the cd(recording,muscians,artwork etc) is fulfilled, after that the deal gets a wee bit better. so i make $2.50 per cd. and you feel i make too much money?
    why do you think budweiser and coca cola underwrite major tours? it cost too much. when you buy a $60 t-shirt did you know the venue takes 50-55% of that? merchandise is the only thing that keeps most bands afloat, so if i use the word “stealing” it is because I AM offended that you want what i made for free. you’re entitled to make a living, whay am i denied that right because of technology and the mind set of entitlement?

    Nov 1st, 2008

74. Tony Bunn

    This is very much so a loaded question; instead of it being a win-win scenario, it’s structured in a lose-lose fashion.

    An analogous question might be the follow: “Did the historic value of the pyramids of ancient Egypt (and quite a few other great works from antiquity) justify the abuse and death of the countless thousands of slaves it took to build them?” Hmmmmmmm. At the same time, might not at least one of those slaves have had the intrinsic potential to have altered history to such a degree that the world would be vastly different than that which we know today, had he or she been properly nurtured? Perhaps human culture itself would be lightyears ahead of its present state of advancement.

    The culture that tramples the rights to growth of its very constituents is ultimately the culture that dies!

    Nov 1st, 2008

75. stan oliva

    The question:Is it more important that music businesses make money, or is it more important that culture expands, innovates and grows?
    My opinion is with culture expanding, innovating and thus growing, it creates the business to take( more than make) the money up for grabs due the innovativeness of the businessman ( an Artist in himself?)
    The first guy who said let’s make a record of this guy and sell it to people and play it on the radio so people can hear it was pretty innovative himself (herself) too. How about the guy who invented the radio? Should artist share in royalties of that patent..after all what are they going to send over the airwaves all day… It seems it all comes together and separates at the same time.
    But I think culture wins over business- with out culture there is no business. But I also think it’s a trick question.
    Are the creations of the author a by product of culture and therefore business? When did the creation become a product to sell?
    It becomes ours at the moment of creation according to copyright laws put in place to protect the author (culture?) and the authors publishers ( business?).
    Connected at the hip are culture and business and one hops over the other in order to gain an advantage.
    I think the Beatles, Spears comparison can’t be for many reasons.
    The Beatles, tremendously creative artists, with the help of a businessman created an enormously successful franchise the likes of which was never seen until then in the music business.
    Culture decided to change the rules.

    Nov 1st, 2008

76. TonsoTunez

    Let me suggest that the confiscation of other people’s work for the inclusion in technically generated musical collages and offering those collages to the public for sale – or for free – without compensating the creators of the underlying musical works is not advancing our culture, but, rather, will lead to the destruction of our culture.

    Copyright is designed to protect the expression of an idea – not the idea itself – thereby permitting the expansion of culture by allowing ideas to be built upon through their expression in many different ways by many different people. For example, there can be a thousand songs entitled, “I Love You” each expressing the basic idea in a unique way – each protected by copyright and each endowed with rights the creator can use, if the creator so desires, to generate income for his or her benefit.

    99 per cent of the music that has been copied and pasted to advance the so called ‘new’ culture has been commercially successful. The products of Danger Mouse and Gregg Gillis have gained recognition only because the public has been made aware of the names of the commercially successful artists and songwriters whose music has been sampled. An album made up of samples of music contributed to the Creative Commons would be a commercial yawn because there would be nothing recognizable in the offering to attract a large audience. In other words, mash-ups are meaningless – and totally unhip – if there isn’t a huge pre-sold audience for the music the copy and paste technician has confiscated.

    Now, let’s take a look at what is happening to the people who are actually advancing our culture – those who create the music the copy and paste technicians confiscate.

    First of all, let’s dispel the false assumption that anybody and his brother can create music that will connect with the large segment of the public … We must stop using as the premise for discussion that it’s easy to write a song, to be a unique performing artist, to be a virtuoso musician, to produce a record and to market the results to the world. None of its easy … and even if all of the elements of greatness have been put together to create a spectacular recording there is no assurance that the public will give a damn. 90% of the recordings that are made available to the public in one way or another never connect with a large audience. Therefore, the music that does connect is truly ‘magical’ – truly unique – truly one of a kind – truly community building and truly culture enhancing.

    It usually takes enormous amounts of sacrifice, endurance, disappointment, training and hard work for musically creative people to even reach the threshold of having an opportunity to become successful and feed their families via the financial fruits of their creative labors… Most who try – many with overwhelming talent and ability – are forced to give up when real life kicks in and they become obliged to abandon their dreams as they come face to face with reality.

    It is those who make it that are the beacon for those who will follow. .. A beacon that creates a pool of enthusiastic, excited, dedicate, would-be professional creators – some of whom will advance culture to the next level and become the beacons for the next generation who will advance our culture even further.

    The ever expanding notion that opportunity to built a life for ones self based on what ones mind can create from nothing is being snuffed by technology is dimming the beacon for those who would try in the future. When there is no hope, why endure the pain?

    What we will be left with is what the so called ‘new culture’ is becoming… copy and paste scavengers picking over the bones of commercial creative triumphs past.

    Certainly, there is a massive existing catalog of magnificent commercial material to confiscate well into the future, but without new underlying musical creativity coming on line to freshen the copy and paste offerings culture will stagnate and will become nothing more than a musical version of Bill Murray’s “Groundhog Day.”

    I’m not, for a moment, suggesting that technology should be stifled – it should grow and prosper – but, so should those who actually DO create our culture – those who give technology something to do – those who create the music that is technologies life’s blood.

    Kiss off the musically creative innovators and kiss our culture goodbye.

    Nov 1st, 2008

77. Don Coyer

    I think it’s pointless to worry about the evolution of popular culture because it can’t be stopped anyway. Nothing is going to stop change. And that may include the right of artists to be paid for their work, unfortunately. But thinking that protecting the rights of creative people may somehow impede “evolution,” is not really useful thinking. I list some concerns below.

    I haven’t read the other replies yet, but it’s difficult to see how valid this question really is because…… is it really progress? The reason I say that is that it seems to me that music has been devalued. People have a zillion tracks, and especially the kids, don’t even know who the artist is half the time. I think they went into a frenzy early on and started grabbing anything they could swipe off the p2p sites. Now they just say, I like track 13. A real problem is that there is so much “music” everywhere all the time, on cell phones, TV, booming down your street, on all the media, even in greeting cards, it’s overload. As a musician in clubs, I see that people have a much shorter attention span for music than they used to. I think a major problem is that if you own a digital song, meaning if you have it in your possession, you really have nothing. I think about a ton of files I have on my computer, and how often do I go listen to them? Even with CDs….somehow they’ve never seemed that valuable, though I don’t want anyone stealing them. But with the old LPs, as imperfect an art form as they may have been (in some opinions) sound-quality wise…when you have an LP in your hand, you’ve invested in something, and to this day, they feel valuable. More importantly, they’re fun, they’re tangible and because of the size, they look a lot better, let’s face it. (another art form that became lost because of size is the daily comic strip. They are so small now that the artist can barely do anything to convey the point of the strip, and as a result, are not enjoyable to look at. This is a related point because if something is not FUN, people won’t be bothered to do it very much)

    It sounds like I’m off topic, but what I’m trying to point out is that, while it may be a cultural phenomenon that people have been able to get vast unknown amounts of free music, does it even mean anything to them? It’s just not interesting to open a file on a computer or ipod and listen to it. So in that respect it seems to me that maybe all this free access to music isn’t a positive impact on society. People don’t really respect music or musicians like they used to. The entire perspective of the value of music has been warped. People really think, as a result of the prevailing attitude in the early 90s, that musicians shouldn’t worry about money. But it’s a simple fact that you respect something more if you have to pay for it, or if you have to work to get it. Human nature.

    Everything will level out in it’s own good time, though it’s hard to see how at this point. When radio was first introduced, the money people weren’t interested because they couldn’t understand how money could be made off of it since it was floating out there for free. But radio was unstoppable, and here we are. We’re at that crossroads again, and we have to worry more about how to make sure artists still get paid for their work than whether we’re going to plug up progress, because you might as well try to stop time if you are going to try to stop change, so why worry about that aspect of it?

    An observation that may point to the future is this. People now, because of Karaoke and other things that have crept into our society, aren’t content to sit back and enjoy music as they used to. It’s revealing that the gaming industry is leaving the music industry in the dust. It’s hands-on, and people don’t want to sit and watch anymore, their egos are inflated now and they want to do things themselves. The cat is out of the bag, and nobody really cares about talent anymore, they want to do it themselves. Doesn’t it sound like the same thing is happening with sampling music and changing things around, etc? People want to do it themselves, and it’s another devaluing trend in a way, because with this attitude, they devalue talent. A lot of people who perhaps could have become great musicians have been content to rap rap rap, instead of learning to actually play something and have the musical confidence to do something truly creative instead of just derivative. (this has nothing to do with whether you like a music form, it’s just fact) So this whole thing becomes a much larger question than maybe was intended because, how much responsibility does the school system share since the decline of music education? Sports is crammed down everyone’s throats, and I’d love to see people sitting screaming at a television set over a music concert the way they do a sports broadcast. It goes on and on, sports bars vastly outnumber music bars now. I think the important question is how do we get people interested in MUSIC again? For it’s own sake.

    One more note. Everything is affected by PERCEPTION. Prevailing attitudes have hurt the whole entertainment industry. We need some guitar heroes again, and I don’t mean the lame game. One seemingly small aspect of it is this. My friend Randy Wood told him that George Gruhn in Nashville told him that people have almost stopped buying vintage instruments now…because nobody in the last generation or so has had a guitar hero to emulate. That’s kind of scary when you think of the impact that Elvis and the Beatles had on music, BAM, Overnight, literally, a million music careers were launched. But now it’s a bunch of copycats, and the music corporations are responsible for that type of thinking. CREATIVITY isn’t rewarded, conformity and mediocrity is.

    I’m sure it looks like I’m getting off the subject with this, but since you expressed concern about “the evolution of popular culture,” I’m trying to point out pieces of the puzzle that all tie together, and it shows the real problems we face. A lot of it is perception and attitude. Let evolution take care of itself and worry about how to get people’s minds back on track and excited about music. Maybe artists should just release their unmixed tracks to the public like Peter Gabriel did with Shock the Monkey. But I would be more interested in seeing people learn how to think for themselves, how to actually play and actually create. THAT is where the true strength of the music industry lies. DC

    Nov 1st, 2008

78. Suzanne

    A so-called cultural advance that occurs without integrity is advancing the hollow greediness that has characterized America’s business environment over these last 8 years. A parasitic culture based on the self-serving notion of entitlement has diminished our respect for our deep musical culture and the real value of our creative output. We live now in a culture of either “oldies” or derivative techno garbage.
    So many above responses have already expressed better than I the realities of our vulnerable profession. For myself, I choose not to create now rather than to offer up my blood and soul to the pirhanas of the universe.

    Nov 1st, 2008

79. Huck Walton

    This has happened before.

    Everything that is happened in this age has happened contingent to the cultural weapons of the time. I see the dawn of an evolving industry, getting us back to a surplus of financial success. We are reaching an event horizon of cultural chaos. The upcoming artist and creators will emerge to take advantage of the musical immersion that is happening; when that happens… it will be cool!

    Nov 3rd, 2008

80. Johnny

    Realizing culture comes from everywhere and everyone, means it will always be evolving. Here in Louisiana, where American Music was born from the East Carribeans and Africans who were brought here against there will. Their culture meshed with English, Spanish, French, Italian, Jewish, etc and whalla…….money was made. Creativity abounds and will never cease to exist bringing wealth to all forever. Intellectual property has validity, noone should be deprived the earnings of their creations. EVER! It is the choice of those who create the wealth’s descision whether to share or not.

    Nov 3rd, 2008

81. Ignace / @micronauta

    From a third-world perspective, I would like to add to what Jim Combs mentions: it’s not necessarily a good thing. The difference between culture and money, and work and life, for us who try to work in this business, seems to be related to the fact that cultural work is relegated as non-important, non-priority. It might be arguable, there might actually always be more importante basic (Maslow) things for society to take care of and for people to spend money on, and that’s fine, but in contexts where there is little money and little social infrastructure, and/or small markets, people who work on any form of art have a really hard time and usually have to also work in some completely different line of work, in order to be able to pay the rent, send kids to school, get a reasonable level of health care and so on.

    Nov 3rd, 2008

82. Krzysztof Wiszniewski

    I’ve refrained from commenting here thus far (though I have written a bit on the subject at The Cynical Musician.com when the post originally appeared). Presently, I’d like to side with Tonsotunez in questioning the real cultural value of derivative work, to the extent that it infringes copyright.

    I’ll take a cue from Lessig and differentiate between non-commercial and commercial derivative work. To the extent that it is non-commercial, derivative work can be a stimulating creative exercise. However, as long as it remains uncommercial (and in the nature of an educational exercise), there is no need or call for it to be published (and everything you post on the net is publishing of a kind). If you don’t publish, you usually won’t have a problem (I don’t think anyone cares about me working out commercially-released songs as part of ear-training, for myself and in the privacy of my own home). If you chose to publish, whatever the terms, you should be aware of the legal context and undertake all necessary steps to secure your position as publisher. (This sounds heavy, but basically means: think before you post something on the Internet.)

    I have a much bigger problem with commercial derivative works, for mostly the same reason as Tonsotunez. Chosing to do a straight derivative (as opposed to inspired) work is a creative cop-out. In a commercial context, it is risk-minimisation and an attempt to grab a slice of the pie someone else has baked. Notice that most sampled works primarily make use of the hooks in the original piece and retain little (if any) of its flavour. This, I’m afraid to say, is especially true of hip-hop, where any artistic value in the original (especially lyrics-wise) is usually replaced by the worst kind of easy-to-sell dross you can imagine. This is fine, I suppose, if we do accept some form of cultural relativism (to the extent that if it’s popular, it’s good), but if we claim that some things are simply better than others, this is exactly the sort of thing we should fight.

    Having said that, the people who make the aforementioned recordings usually have enough industry backing to secure the necessary clearances. Nonetheless, it is a practice that, in my opinion, should not be encouraged. If copyright laws make it hard for you to use other people’s work directly, you may decide to write something of your own that explores the same sonic spaces, but isn’t an infringement. To me, that is a much more valuable form of creativity and one which offers greater scope for cultural evolution.

    Nov 4th, 2008

83. Nuno

    Hey! First of all, sorry if I disperse for a second here, I like your website, and I find the stuff I’ve read in it preety damn interesting.
    So I’m chipping in.

    I see this question almost as a biological one. If not entirely.
    The thing about this parallel that you’ve estabilished is that the two are too diferent to compare. They’re not on the same level.

    Long before making money with it, Man was making music.
    Not because they thought it could possibly, in a distant future, be profitable, but because they had to.
    Because there was a reason for music (as I could say painting or any ancient cultural manifestations that evolved to what they are now) to exist, and I don’t know if It may come as an offense to someone but I think of art as a religion. No association with any particular deity, no image to pray upon, just an inexplicable drive to engage in such kind of creative or representative act.
    I guess that’s just how lots of people start playing music. Because it feels so good. Because it unites in pleasure (a little bit over the top?).
    It’s a part of something larger than people.

    Culture in general is larger than life. Consequentially, larger than any tipe of right or royalty.
    Should the recent and still emergent crisis strike down on the music industry (hope not) in a way that it could no longer stand, I’m preety sure we’d still be hearing music all over. Even if all the musicians on earth had “day jobs”. There’s no stopping it.

    Of course it would be nice to score some royalties, but even if there are none, some of us will still make music. And it will still make someone happy, or sad, or something…

    Nov 5th, 2008

1. Making Money or Advancing Culture and Art - must I choose | Lyrics Matter - MatthewMoranOnline.com - Oct 30th, 2008
2. Opinion: Question nobody ever asks… - Oct 31st, 2008
3. Sean Snyder INK Blog » Great Discussion on New Music Strategies - Oct 31st, 2008

So... What do YOU think?