A campaign lobbying for blanket extension of copyright for performers produced this very effective video, which is an open letter to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Filmed at Abbey Road Studios in London, it features professional session musicians who put their case.
I happen to disagree with it – but not because I don’t want those people to earn money. I disagree with it because simply making the laws we have apply for a longer period of time overlooks one very important fact: the laws we have do not do the job they are supposed to do, and in large part the reason for that is that the technological environment has changed.
Copyright law needs to be completely re-written.
There’s no use extending laws in blanket fashion when those laws are completely faulty in the first place. Extending copyright indefinitely (which is what they’re essentially asking for) might be financially good for them (though actually it’s not as simple as that) and may satisfy their sense of entitlement for the time being, but it’s not good for culture at large.
Now, I should try and make this bit absolutely clear: If the recordings are being used for commercial purposes, then I have no problem with those artists being paid.
I’ve explained this at length in the past. I’ve been willfully misunderstood and misrepresented on that point, and I suspect I will be here again too – but such is life. That said, I’ll try again:
I am on the side of the musicians in this video. I want for them to continue to earn money – and I think that, for the most part, they should earn more than they currently do. I believe that the argument they are mounting misrepresents the actual problem of copyright, undermines their actual goals, and is bad for culture, society and music in general.
I am not anti-copyright. I think it is so important that to merely patch and extend as they suggest is to reinforce all of the inherent problems it currently has. However, when you’re considering a position from the point of view of personal financial gain, but arguing it from the point of view of morality and fairness, its very easy to dismiss alternative positions as outrageous and unfair.
So – to clarify – let me highlight THREE problems here:
1) This plea from musicians is not about copyright extension. This is about BLANKET copyright extension. It would apply to all recordings whether they are commercially available or not. Copyright is about permission. This extension would further prevent permission to use the works even being sought (let alone being granted) in the case of MOST music.
2) Existing copyright law fails to recognise and indeed criminalises many of the kinds of activity that many people – predominantly young people – use internet technologies for. Existing copyright is digital media illiterate. I refer you to this video for further explanation.
3) Copyright extension fails to recognise that most recorded works are not available to the public in any way. It privileges only those musicians whose works are currently commercially available, and does not in any way consider what’s good for culture and the general public.
So – it’s one thing to say ‘I spent an afternoon playing guitar on a Mannfred Mann song one day 45 years ago, and I think I should still be earning for that afternoon’s work in 50 years time’ (which, actually, I’m more than fine with) but quite another to lock ALL music up for 100 years and make it illegal to do anything with it (sampling, remixing, mash-ups, re-issues of public domain works) regardless of whether people are actively earning from it or not.
Saying no to blanket copyright extension is just the first step.
It’s not a refusal to let these people earn. It’s an admission that our existing copyright laws don’t work and that public access to culture is important too. But it’s no good leaving it there. This just affirms the status quo.
The next step is copyright reform
Rewrite the laws from scratch to acknowledge and respect the rights and responsibilities of composers, performers, publishers, record labels, consumers and – most importantly – citizens.
One of the musicians invokes Obama in the plea to Brown. I think they’re in for a surprise there. Of all the leaders of state making decisions about this over the next few years, Obama seems most likely to recognise the full extent of the issue and instigate a genuine review of copyright law – rather than merely make the old, problematic laws we do have apply for a much longer period of time.
So yes, Mr Brown. Please do consider the rights and the earning capacity of these professional musicians. But please don’t ignore everything and everyone else and end up locking down culture indefinitely in the process.
Download Andrew Dubber's new book Music in the Digital Age - or, if you already have and you've been enjoying it or finding it useful, please consider paying for it here.
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/11/29/ps-theres-a-bit-more-to-this/trackback/
23 Comments
We’ve been over this before, so I’ll just address the points you’ve made here:
Ad 1: The fact that something is commercially available or not has no impact on the fundamental idea behind copyright. Why isn’t it commercially available? Perhaps the copyright holders do not want it to be? Perhaps it hasn’t been economically viable to continue to make it available? Well, we have Long Tail economics these days, don’t we? (Whatever they’re worth.) Content that hasn’t been available because duplicating it on physical media didn’t make economic sense, can now be made available in digital form. Why should anyone off the street, who had no practical or financial role in producing it be allowed to do that. Will making this stuff available change anything? Not really. Most of this music has long been forgotten. Perhaps we should be looking forward, rather than bemoaning something that already has been lost? Or perhaps we should signal the copyright holders that there is a market for this work so that it becomes commercially available once more?
Ad 2: The reason this activity is criminalised is that it is taken public by the people who engage in it. I used to play covers and even mash-ups in my bedroom before the Internet and no one gave a damn. I admit, there is room for reform here, but I really don’t see why we, the creators of copyrighted works, should be going out of our way to make life easy for people who then make parasitic creations based on our work. Perhaps if we didn’t they’d have more of an incentive to create something original, yes? In short, if you don’t want to infringe, don’t publish. Period.
Ad 3: So what if this work is no longer available? Most of the music ever written or played is no longer available (just like 99% of species alive in the history of the Earth are extinct). There are new songs being written every day. Long Tail research has shown that the general public is only really interested in the big sellers anyway, so I find this line of argument weak. For the rest, see 1.
P.S. I’ve a special bone to pick over this whole derivative works business, but I’ll be doing that on The Cynical Musician.
P.P.S. I realise, that I may be coming off extremely hard-line here, when in fact I do see room for the review of copyright laws. However, I find the line of argument proposed here (and most notably in Lessig’s “Free Culture”) unhelpful, irrational and rather annoying.
Yep – we’ve had this conversation in the past, and I suspect neither of us is going to change the mind of the other (though looking back over past comments you appear to have mellowed on this substantially).
1. This is largely about incentivising hoarders of copyright works to release them commercially. The prohibitive costs of physical manufacture do not stand in the way of commercial release – but existing (and virtually indefinite) copyright protection provides no incentive or urgency to publish.
2. Oh absolutely. Why should artists go out of their way to encourage the enrichment of culture? Professionalise and prevent those who cannot afford to hear music from having anything to do with it. Seriously, though – I can’t understand the notion that the lot of a musician improves, or that culture is enhanced by preventing people (even all those ‘uncreative, ordinary people’) from publishing amateur works.
3. The fact that most music is not available means that most work by professional musicians is unable to be rewarded. The argument being mounted in the video is that performances played fifty years ago should continue to be recompensed fifty years from now. If there’s any sense in which that’s true, then why should it be true only for those whose works make economic sense in the 20th century? The argument that there are more songs being written every day supports copyright reduction, not extension – which I’m not sure was your intention.
With you on the species thing though – who need white rhinos anyway? I mean honestly, if you can’t cut it in the modern environment you clearly deserve extinction. ;)
PS: All creative works are derivative in some way. Same notes, different order. Here’s one clearly derivative work I happen to think is pretty creative… [Contains strong language, etc.]
PPS: I can see how you’d get frustrated with an argument that puts the interests of ordinary citizens on the same level as those of musicians.
For the American readers (Andrew, please correct me if I’m wrong), I just wanted to point out that in the UK and other parts of Europe, recorded works (master recordings) enter the public domain after 50 years.
In the US, the master recordings do not enter public domain, but the written works (actual songs) eventually do.
When I worked for a jazz label in the US, we’d see many of our classic tracks end up on compilations overseas. We didn’t earn revenue from the use because they were in the public domain. That’s not that big of a deal in terms of physical distribution, but now that music can be traded (paid or not) digitally, it could potentially create a conflict.
I only point that out to say that copyright laws, and anything that tries to protect creative works need to be revised on a global level. I’m a musician, relatively early in my career, and would like to think that the music I write and record could be considered assets for my future. I already can’t afford to go to the doctor (at least not in the US), so I’ll need some kind of income when I’m too old to gig regularly!
Krzysztof — so, all musicians who play “cover tunes” are parasites?
Hmmmm… guess we’d better get rid of all those pesky symphony orchestras then. Bummer that. We in Seattle just (relatively) recently built them a lovely new hall to perform in.
I can’t speak for the world, but everyone in the US who is arguing for extension-in-perpetuity of copyright law is simply ignorant of the founder’s initial purpose for copyright.
No matter how much blather you put out about it, it’s still ignorance.
> So – it’s one thing to say ‘I spent an afternoon playing guitar on a Mannfred Mann song one day 45 years ago, and I think I should still be earning for that afternoon’s work in 50 years time’ (which, actually, I’m more than fine with)
When I read that my first thought was – well, *I* don’t agree!, *I* don’t get paid for something I did fifty years ago ..etc (well, you know the rest ;-).
But that’s something of a knee-jerk reaction and deserves some introspection.
The issue here is in the amount of money a musician earns rather than the period over which it is received. There is a perception that because fifty years is such a long time a musician must accumulate a prodigious sum over that period, but I realise that isn’t necessarily the case.
Musicians devote a great deal of skill and effort in the pursuit of their art, and they should be able to earn a fair return on that. The question is – is the current system of royalties on sale of copies a reasonable way of doing this (for the musician and for society)?
I see two problems here. First it seems to me the connection between the amount of effort expended and the amount of money earned is too indirect. In most walks of life you can look at a person and say, this is what he does and this is (roughly) what he earns, and you can make a judgement as to whether or not that is fair. I feel that is an important concept in our capitalist society – people need to see that everyone else earns reasonably fair recompense for their efforts and skills.
I think the royalty system fails in this respect, not only can most people not judge how much a musician earns, but the system tends to skew peoples perception, leading many to believe that most musicians “must” be earning far too much. (Despite the fact that in reality many are close to the breadline)
Secondly, let’s try turning the royalty model on it’s head. Like many people, I get paid at the end of the month for the work I did in that month. Why should musicians have to wait *50 whole years* to get the money they are owed! Look at it this way and you could almost imagine musicians taking to the streets, demanding to be paid in a more timely manner!
Yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek, but my point is that many musicians defend the royalty model, yet not only is it probably no longer the best model for society (if it ever was), but it might not even be the best model for musicians.
The advent of new technology will always facilitate the circumvention of what is lawful and fair and right, for any who think in those terms. The fact that digital product acts differently from material product was never a reason to recalibrate our ethics regarding property ownership, digital or otherwise. It’s a sad commentary that digital artists who depend on copyright are expected to accept limits that common sense dictates would be wholly unacceptable within the material world. The art world becomes a better, more just place for digital creators when those with a voice of authority come to stand for principle over convenience.
@Cameron
> I already can’t afford to go to the doctor (at least not in the US), so I’ll need some kind of income when I’m too old to gig regularly!
The copyright system is meant to give you an incentive to create more music, it isn’t a welfare system!
If you want a decent pension you should invest some of the money you’re earning now into a pension scheme, just like everyone else has to do!
@David
I invoked the health care issue rather lightheartedly, not suggesting I’m looking for handouts, simply stating that earning income from the music I make, while only one revenue stream, is still and important revenue stream. Should I live another 50 years I’ll be nearly 80. It would be nice to think the music I created now (my own music, not necessarily as a session work) could be an asset not only for myself in old age, but also for my family. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to for something like that to be considered.
Now if we’re talking pension plans, we’re talking unions in the US. The musician’s union needs some serious upgrading to be relevant for this generation. And it’s failed many legendary musicians who have not been properly paid for their work over the years. Lack of income results in lack of contributions/investment into the plan, which results in a smaller pension and less benefits.
If you want a pension plan to work, the musicians need to be paid fairly from the start. Yet another reason the copyright reform is so important.
Unions are such a strange concept for musicians, because they are ordinarily about employment terms and conditions, when most musicians – particularly those in the popular music fields – exist outside traditional notions of ‘employment’.
It’s interesting – I was having this conversation with a colleague (formerly of the British MU) and he suggested that while it once made a lot of sense, other than theatre musicians or session musicians, for whom traditional unionism makes very good sense, it might be more appropriate to have a professional guild of musicians rather than a ‘union’. Quite a different focus and set of aims.
@Andrew: There’s nothing as far as copyright is concerned, preventing the creation of new songs. Notice the word “new”, as in: creative not derived. They may even be published freely, under any conditions the creator chooses. No one’s forcing anyone to reserve their copyrights. The problem of copyright hoarding is a different issue, but one that’s unavoidable in a free-market economy.
With regards to derivative works, I’ll take the liberty to plug: I’ve written out my feelings about the matter on The Cynical Musician – Why Sousa was right – as promised. It has nothing to do with professionalism, but everything to do with creation.
@Howlin’ Hobbit: Yes, they are. I’ve done it (and will probably do so in the future), so I know. ;)
@Cameron
> I invoked the health care issue rather lightheartedly
I thought you had, but I feel strongly about it – it may have come over with a sharper tone than I intended.
>If you want a pension plan to work, the musicians need to be paid fairly from the start.
Absolutely, if you aren’t going to be earning for something you did today in fifty years time, then you should absolutely be paid more for it now. Then you would be able to invest some of it for your future.
> It would be nice to think the music I created now could be an asset not only for myself in old age, but also for my family.
I think it should be a cultural asset that could enrich and inspire future
generations, which is somewhat at odds with your desire to continue to exploit it financially.
Also, while I understand your desire to provide for your family (I have two daughters myself), I am of the opinion it is much better for children to grow up able and willing to provide for themselves after you are dead and gone.
No offence, but I feel I would be doing my children a disservice if I were to allow them to live off handouts from my estate (not that my estate is likely to be worth much ;-). To see the kind of mentality that can foster, you’ve only got to look to the recent example of Martin Luther King’s family, who objected to people putting King’s likeness on t-shirts in support of Obama’s campaign, not because they felt it was inappropriate but because they *felt like they should be getting a cut*.
Sorry, there I go again – something else I feel strongly about ;-)
Just an example here, but a relevant one:
It take 400 licences for the owners of Britney spears’ copyright to legally place one of her videos on youtube. That’s about 40+ hours of work for one video.
Ever wonder why goggle don’t get involved in music? One and only reason is the sorry inadequecies of copyright.
When one of the most innovative and forward thinking companies refusues to engage in the industry you love because of the entirely incompatible laws which govern that industry, something needs to change.
Copyright needs to change.
“PPS: I can see how you’d get frustrated with an argument that puts the interests of ordinary citizens on the same level as those of musicians.”
Damn. That was a gem of an observation you made their Andrew (about some artists concepts of godliness)
PPPSSS – I think I am actually beginning to grasp your point about this Andrew. It has taken me a while to truly read and understand what you have meant all this time, but I think I am coming around.
@Andrew – Exactly my point about unions. There’s got to be a better solution for contemporary freelancers.
@David – I really like what you say, and actually agree with most of it, disagree with some. But let me cut to the chase.
I’m not greedy and I definitely don’t want to prevent anybody from being able to hear my music, I just want to make a living. I’m not trying to get rich, I just want fair compensation for what I produce. I have financial needs which are currently met by exploiting my assets, but I’m not attempting to put those at odds with future generations access to my music, that’s bad for them, bad for me. I also don’t want handouts.
@Everyone – If music is relevant 50, 75, 100 years after it was created, then it obviously has had a lasting effect on our culture. If somebody is going to make a profit from it, why can’t the musicians earn royalties? Where do we draw the line? I think that’s where the copyright reform needs to happen.
If musicians come across as defensive or seem to be putting their interests above those of ordinary citizens, it’s probably overcompensation from years of defending their career choice and hustling for paying jobs. Most of us are just trying to preserve whatever living we’ve got.
Now excuse me while I look over my music for tomorrow’s $40 jazz gig. Hope I’m not doing this at 80. Ouch.
For some reason this conversation reminds me of sales-people being cut-throat trying to jump each others accounts / sales / clients. I guess the correlation being that in the end the “good” ones have a knack or talent for success.
That means keeping up with the details involved in making sure ‘you get the sale’ or that ‘you own the property’. Professionals take measures to ensure their work is compensated for. I believe what is left from that are the folks that did not manage the details or persist in making sure what’s theirs is theirs and leaving no openings for someone else getting credit.
Copyright is manageable if you take the time to manage it…And it can also be humane / moral regarding sharing works or allowing others to contribute and / or benefit.
I’m not an authority on copyright but I disagree with the union vs. guild position. Guilds were set up to restrict entry to a trade so you couldn’t practice professionally until the guild approved you which I hope is not the model being proposed here.
Anyone can join the MU and immediately get public indemnity insurance, protection against instrument theft and tax and pension advice, all of which I’d have thought were pretty useful. The fact that we’re talking about copyright on recordings at all is thanks to the 1942 Musicians’ Union strike. I know we’re all Thatcher’s Children now and the received wisdom is Unions Bad, Individualism Good, but if anyone reading this works in a safe environment, has the right to a pension, takes paid holidays and is entitled to sick leave they have a union to thanks for it.
Wow – failure to communicate on my part. Again.
1) Totally in favour of unions. Absolutely agree. Anyone in employment should belong.
2) Musicians should belong to the MU. Free legal advice just for starters.
3) My point is that the concept of ‘unionism’ doesn’t really make sense for a lot of musicians who are not in employment, and so most people in bands don’t join the MU when they really should.
It’s one of the biggest problems facing the organisation, as I understand it. It’s full of people whose ‘job’ is musician, but proportionately much fewer bands, members of music enterprise and players who set up their own projects. People the MU could be really helpful to – but who don’t join because they don’t see the need to be in a union.
Individualism is a problem (certainly, isolationism is a problem) – but collectivism would make more sense as professional networks or societies than worker’s rights organisations for most musicians.
You’re absolutely right. Guild is the wrong word. Group? Network? Collective?
My point in this instance is not that joining the MU is a bad idea (far from it) but that one of the problems that the MU has is that it is a Union, and Unions are broadly understood as about conditions of employment.
Which could be in part where the flaw in thinking about copyright is coming from, now that I think about it. The unionism metaphor has been extended and applied to an aspect of creativity it doesn’t fit well in all instances. Most, I’d argue.
The musicians in the video we are discussing are talking about copyright as if it’s salary and pension scheme rolled into one.
It’s not. It’s an ASSET. And an unevenly distributed one at that. But it’s a problematic asset – because owning copyright does not mean owning music.
Copyright is a property right. It subsists in music. Music is media and it’s culture. And that’s where this gets interesting.
I have been following the copyright debates here and carried elsewhere for the last month or so. As I am still learning the issues, I have discovered that the legal debate (as argued in a court of law) on copyright is based upon distinguishing between a rivalrous resource and a non-rivalrous resource.
A rivalrous resource is a resource like drinking water or oil, where one person’s use competes with another’s, and a non-rivalrous resource is a resource like the English language that cannot be depleted. (from the NY Times article titled “What Is Art For”.)
Apparently, the copyright reformers like Lessig argue that music is a non-rivalrous resource. This is the part of the argument I am having the most trouble swallowing.
It seems that if everyone could use songs in a non-rivalrous manner, the resource (a single song) would become depleted. However, I can also see how someone could adopt the exact opposite position (which I may).
So, are songs rivalrous resources or are they not? I am late to the debate, but this is the portion of it I am trying to understand.
“Is music / a song a rivalrous resource?”
As For Listening Use:
Does one persons listening compete with another persons listening? Yeah, I think that’s true via Top 10 charts and the like. It is kind of the basis for “popular” music obviously.
As For “Artistic” Use / Derivation:
Lets start by getting the DJ out of the equation. For turntabilists like DJ Shadow, DJ Qbert, Kid Koala, etc. etc. I think these artists (yes, it is an art / talent / skill to do what they do, Youtube them) use copyrighted works in a non-rivalrous manner. These DJ’s treat each song as if it were the English language and can never be depleted…only enhanced, evolved, re-arranged and uniquely re-thought as to their use.
Based on that description I think this type of use of copyrighted material should be considered free publicity on the part of the original artists. Many, many, many of these songs would have never seen the light of day after their initial introduction to the world if these DJ’s had not dug them out of a crate to mash and mix into a modern, current music environment.
The system for compensation for this type of use should be designed / modified for this specific circumstance. A compromise in fees in exchange for the unexpected exposure it can provide(?)
But honestly, DJ’s could give a crap about that. They will use the works no matter what when they perform live. I think for DJ’s it comes into play when they begin to release albums.
Now For The “Musician / Artist” Use:
Is there a note that has not been played? No.
Is there a melody that has not been used? No.
(Listen to Alicia Keys for a very good example of this)
However music continues to be made every day in spite of the fact that there is no “Original” note or melody to be created.
Given the fact that there can never be a 100% original song created this late in human evolution, it would make sense to reconsider and adapt the copyright laws to encourage rather than discourage artists.
Some thoughts:
1) It should be EASY to obtain a copyright / publishing / ownership
2) It should be a very reasonable / affordable upfront fee (flat)
3) The split between original composer and artists deriving the works should be the same across the board. It should also be established from the onset what the “per-play split” should be (universally across the board)
For a set, flat fee – all works should be made available to all artists to mash and mangle, adapt and evolve any way they please. Surely the “industry” people understand: It is what happens after the works hit the airwaves / digital signals that the REAL monetization takes place, right? And the money that comes in from the plays / popularity will be distributed accordingly.
Some of that already exists in one way or another but my personal belief is that it needs to be solidified. From the birth of each creation original or derived, the costs should be the same. This allows for “starving” artists to stay in the game.
Popularity will be the deciding factor as to who gets more or less money in the end. If people like what “Artist X” created today using a sample from something “Artist Y” created 10 years ago then surely both artists X and Y would be compensated fairly based on the concept of the upfront-flat fee and per-play split.
(IMO) The only things stopping this from happening are greed, ego and way to many f*#@ing hands in the cookie jar (to many cooks in the kitchen, etc. etc.): Artist, PR, publishing house, Labels, managers, lawyers, etc. etc. (of course a couple of those are absolutely needed but I believe many of those positions can / are consolidated into one person).
Is it to easy? Will people read this and only see the word “PIRACY” screaming at them? Gosh I hope not. I did not touch on piracy once. In fact it (virtually) can’t exist in the “Utopian” concept of flat and fair fees I presented.
Fair and reasonable is just absurd isn’t it? Maybe I again have shown my ignorance here and I do not understand the discussion at all? Worst case is that I continue to learn and eventually can have this foot surgically removed from my mouth,
Music, notes & melodies are non-rivalrous resources.
Songs, art & “ideas” are rivalrous resources.
Did I comprehend any of this correctly? (heh)
Milton …
Let’s rule the DJ back in.
The DJ uses my music to earn notoriety and a paycheck. The club owner uses the DJ to sell tickets, food, booze, drugs and a prostitute or two here and there along the way.
I get nothing.
Somebody video records the DJ using my music and puts it up on YouTube, the DJ’s name becomes known (you recited several but not one of the underlying creators,) he or she gets notoriety, exposure, new gigs and money.
I get nothing.
According to you, the DJ has “enhanced, evolved, re-arranged and uniquely re-thought” my music to his advantage. In my world we call those activities arrangements or derivative works for which I generally get paid…
In the digital world, however, I’m suppose keep creating new material for every DJ, Dick and Harry to use as they see fit, shut my mouth, give up my rights and just be happy getting nothing.
What a privilege.
Just when do I start getting paid for my contribution to this so called burst of creative energy that needs what I create to catch fire?
Know what? I’m tired of getting nothing.
@Tonsotunez
Well my experience as a DJ comes from the days when we actually did have to use vinyl to make those “uniquely re-thought” mixes or better described as the genre: Turntablism.
So in general the Turntablists payed for their records unless of course they were on someones mailing list to receive promos (**See the recent post at Music Think Tank).
So, you got paid once you sold the record / CD to whichever distributor picked it up and that doesn’t have a damn bit to do with the DJ paying you…in fact as I understood the way the industry used to work; the vast majority of YOUR money came from an advance upon getting a “record deal” (again, leaving the DJ paying YOU out of it).
You can’t fault the DJ’s who spent loads of cash over the years building up their vinyl collection. You could maybe be a little bothered by the fact that 21st century DJ’s do not have to use vinyl…But I would argue that the majority of the “Turntablist” kind of DJ that I am speaking of is still paying for their vinyl (promos excluded).
Now as to your bitter tone in misunderstanding the kind of DJ I was referencing; It sounds like you have much bigger concerns than worrying about whether DJ Shadow cut / scratched 15 seconds of your proudest composition.
Saturation is the problem. How will you stand out? How will you make a noise that is heard louder than the millions of other artists out there?
With the exception on Lars Ulrich, I can not recall any artist who has become successful and self sustaining from their music complain as you have here. Before you get upset about someone stealing your music you might do better to think of it as a way forward: If your music is so good that people want it that bad, then yippee!
The only people worried about loosing money from their music (save Lars) have not made any money from it to begin with…and in my opinion you need to sell a LOT of records before anyone is going out of their way to steal them.
I guess I am a little hostile in my response here because I am just getting so sick and damn tired of all these “Next Rock Stars” out there bitching and whining about not getting their piece of the pie. Do you actually think that P2P file sharing has any effect on the turnout at a live show? OF COURSE IT DOES!!! The more people who share your music means that more people are likely to BUY a ticket to your show (or buy your merch).
I repeat again: The only people who are terribly upset about loosing money in the music game have never made any money from it to begin with.
1) Great music
2) Great communication skills
Same formula since (at least) the invention of the radio. The cream will rise to the top…maybe not ALL of the cream but definitely the cream that figured out WHO to talk to and HOW to talk to them.
Know what? I am tired of entitlement rock star wannabe’s who think they have to give up their rights. Why on earth would you give up your rights? What gun is being placed against your temple?
Ultimately you are in control of your own destiny. Choices. Do you want exposure? Do you want money? Do you want success? It certainly isn’t my fault or any DJ’s fault if you haven’t “made it”.
Great is as Great does.
(and I figure the thought in most readers minds at this point might be: “So what has Milton done to be successful?” or maybe “So what is great about Milton’s music?” My reply: I have made some music that specifically targeted individuals felt was Great. I have developed relationships with these people and it has rewarded me sufficiently. But most of all: I don’t sweat entitlement issues, I just produce.)
***NOTE:
Yeah I used words like “never” and “only” when in truth I should NOT generalize. My bad, but hopefully I made my point in spite of my poor generalizations.
How does something as antiquated as copyright law, which has a half life in the US that is beyond our death, still exist? The Copyright Clause of the United States (1787) authorized copyright legislation: “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.” I think the key words are ’1787′ ,’limited’ and ‘Authors and Inventors’.
Do I need to explain how Sonny Bono (R.I.P) messed this one up?
If you would like to pull the ‘exclusive right’ out of here also, you are more than welcome. If your holding on to your songs these days like they are a some kind of Holy Grail then I feel that you, like Dubber said, should be extinct. Which I did a blog about this in detail.
Here is what I find a little amusing about this argument. The Internet is changing everything before the laws can even begin to catch up to it. This is a completely different game than 10, 5 or even 2 years ago. It seems now that musicians are calling for something, that even if they got their way, wouldn’t even help them now. The musical landscape is being ‘demolished’ by Hurrican Internet. We can choose to cry about it being torn down and rebuild our same musical house on the same foundation or we can choose to build it with a completely new design that will withstand another 100 or 200 years of copyright storms.
I agree with Dubber and Lessig on this matter. A complete rewrite of the Copyright Code is in order for no other reason than it was based on physical copies. We are in the (R)evolution Age my friends.