Hey! Get Off My Copyright! (Work in Progress)

I remember the first day I downloaded a song from Napster. It was quick and free. Today, music costs me 0.99 cents, or 1.29 per track depending on how popular the song is. This is mostly because record labels earn most of their revenue from CDs and band recordings. Surprisingly, the bands themselves make very little off their CD sales, and get most of their revenue from touring and public appearances. So the popular argument is if artists’ revenues come from concerts and cameos, then why can't we download their music for free since when we buy music, we are just paying the big label, which did minimal creative work. Copyright advocates, that is the record label and RIAA, promote the point that without copyrights artists have no incentive to create new music since they will not be reimbursed for time working before they make it big. But in this new technological age, cost of entering the music business, for example studio time, have been greatly lowered due to the furtherance of technology in the past decade. The increase in technology has made it much easier to not only record music, but to copy and distribute music. Many young adults have turned to downloading music for free. DJ’s such as Girl Talk and Daft Punk feely sample music from other artist (whether or not they actually buy the rights I do not know). But the bottom line is that entry cost into the music industry is at a low point, and so why do I have to pay 99 cents or pay anything for music that is so easily available. First, the paper will discuss the idea of the creative commons and how music and song was thought of before the recording industry and the idea of ownership came about. Next we will turn to the music industry as a whole and look at the Audio Home Recording Act by Congress. Finally, the conclusion will wrap up some loose ends, while leaving others, and suggest solutions/ideas for the future.

Creative Commons

The creative commons is an idea taken from property in which everything, starts out shared by the population as a whole. This includes real property, intangible property (such as ideas and songs), and other items. The idea of the creative commons can be akin to a giant pool of ideas that are out there waiting to be used/discovered and are available to anyone. Creative Commons, the nonprofit organization, likens this idea into a type of forefront for copyright users. Instead of the traditional “all rights reserved” slogan, CC has promoted for publishers and others into a “some rights reserved” slogan, and allow other people to build upon their existing ideas. This model echoes the idea of stories and music before the recording industry. Allowing storytellers and artist to sing ballads or recite stories from memory, enabling them to tweak them in their own way. This notion of free usage of material has been changed in our recent culture, with the acceptance of “ownership over ideas” emerging. This ownership, with regards to music, came as of late with the introduction of new technology such as the mini-disk and computers. The realization that studio’s lyrics and musical compilations rights could be easily produced and reproduced created a panic among studios and led to the eventual Audio Home Recording Act.

Music and the Audio Home Recording Act

With Sony and other companies creating mini-disk, CD’s, and eventually, the iPod, the music industry scrambled to protect themselves, and fight the possibility of losing profits. Lobbying against Congress, the industry tried to push for royalties on strictly defined recording products and impose mandatory copy protection on devices and media. The imposition of these regulations were met with force by device makers but ultimately the bill passed because it “protects the legitimate rights of our songwriters, performers, and recording companies to be fairly rewarded for their tremendous talent, expertise, and capital investment. this will be accomplished by fairly compensating these artists for the copying of their works and by creating a system that will prevent unfettered copying of digital audio tapes.” The record company now received royalties from each recording device (although strictly interpreted what a recording device was). This seemed and stil does seem like a proper way to go about legislation to fix current technological advancements, but that was in the 1980’s, where the investment to produce a celebrity (NOT a specific song), was ultimately high and required copious amount of work. Yet, as stated before, these costs have significantly decreased, with the introduction of Youtube and Facebook. These two mediums provide people with the ability to become world famous in a matter of days (i.e, Chocolate Rain, Star Wars Kid, Nick Patera, and Justin Beiber). So then our current system is in place by an industry that generated celebrities in order to reap profits off them. Investment at the beginning was high, but offered a high rate of return. Yet, in our current age, this system no longer is necessary, and can be quite burdensome on the consumer.

What to do?

Currently, the system is in a clash within itself. On the one hand, advocates fight for the open source type idea of freedom among creators, which, in theory, will lead to an overall gain for everyone, with the building of ideas upon ideas leading to one great one. On the other hand, the recording industry has been, until recently, fighting the move towards a more free world of music sharing with costly lawsuits. As artist of late, such as Girl Talk and deadmau5, have shown collaborations in music can lead to an ultimately better song for consumers. While this system works for consumers, the old industry giants need to adapt to the new system (in some ways old) for the transition to be smooth. Could the recent announcement of the RIAA ending its tirade of lawsuits against women and children show signs of a “some rights reserved” copyright world?

Not really. Unless you're a student on a university campus, as an American you mostly cannot get decent broadband at an affordable price. Far from being able to use the net at incredible speed, you get lousy asymmetric service, and you pay way too much for it.

we can do it almost anywhere and at anytime. We can upload, download, stream, and view content around the globe. The internet has become an integral part of our society, but along with it, the quality of recording programs and software for the average home user has grown exponentially. Youtube allows viewers to record anything and upload it. Software like Garageband, while not necessarily professional grade, allows artists to individually record instruments and possibly self-produce whole albums at very low cost. Artists Justin Beiber and Ronald Jenkees got their start by uploading some of their music to Youtube, or mixing their own tracks, and then being found by a talent agent. The current technological capabilities of the internet and recording software allows for artist to produce and distribute their music to millions of people for a minimal cost, and because of this we need to rethink copyright law if the incentive is based on recuperation of time and money.

Recuperation and recoupment are different words with different etymologies.

The technical discussion here sounds sophisticated but isn't. A knowledgeable reader will conclude that she is reading someone who is not fully clued in. That may not be an impression you want to send.

You don't seem to be aware of the Audio Home Recording Act. You don't seem to understand the industry's concept of the "analog hole."

Where Do We Go From Here?

This is an adequate first draft. It misses most of the issues, to one extent or another, but it's a good place to start.

What you have can be reduced to this: costs of production have declined, and listener expectations and capacities have increased. These points are relevant, of course, but they're not the whole story for anybody, no matter which side you're on. That they completely eliminate the case for copyright is plainly wrong.

You proceed as though the only copyright in recorded music were the secondary copyright on the recording, rather than the primary copyrights on the music and lyrics. That alone makes the legal analysis seriously incomplete. You don't consider the collecting societies any more than you consider the people they collect for, and you don't differentiate between gratis and free, as a result of which the Creative Commons idea and its relation to the pre-recording history of music goes undiscussed.

The industry analysis here is also under-developed. The music companies don't make or distribute music, primarily: they promote celebrity. Music is then one among many ancillary products that the central synthetic interpersonal relationship is used to sell. Analysis of the political economy actually developed in such a context would be useful.

Now, of course, the ownership-based industry is on the point of collapse, and is seeking an immense global legal subsidy for coercive distribution models. How DRM nearly worked to deliver the industry into the pocket of Mr Jobs should be described; that irony is a portal to the more complex second-order analysis this essay needs.

Hey! Get Off My Copyright!

This shouldn't be in progress anymore. If it is, please finish up, otherwise remove the work in progress mark. I don't want to edit something you're not finished with.

Hey! Get Off My Copyright! (Work in Progress)

All That Hard Work, Need To Get Paid.

Traditional Copyright Understanding

The Internet and Progress in Recording Technology

Rethinking Copyright Law in the Music Industry

Where Do We Go From Here?

Paper Title

-- By AbielGarcia - 25 Feb 2010

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II

Subsection A

Subsection B

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AbielGarcia

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list