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.
Remember 56K modems and that annoying dial tone when you used to try and sign onto AOL? Now, high speed internet is everywhere and allows us to do miraculous things that were not thought possible in the age of the floppy disc. Not only can we surf at incredible speeds, 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.
> >
Remember 56K modems and that annoying dial tone when you used to try and sign onto AOL? Now, high speed internet is everywhere and allows us to do miraculous things that were not thought possible in the age of the floppy disc. Not only can we surf at incredible speeds,
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.
Rethinking Copyright Law in the Music Industry
Changed:
< <
If it costs little to produce and distribute music as an artist, what role does copyright play now? The argument that copyright promotes artist incentives no longer makes sense because of the relatively low cost to produce music, and subsequent ease to recuperate production costs. All that copyright is doing now is inhibiting the growth of music. Taking one idea and tweaking it to create something that reaches a new audience. The proposed solution would be to change usage rights altogether when it comes to copyright law. We already have specific laws governing the usage of copyrighted material as parody, why not have separate copyright laws governing private home usage? Allow home users unrestricted, free access to music for private enjoyment. The laws should still govern restricted usage in a type of public setting, such as commercials and radio, but with respect to privately enjoying songs while working, just allow free enjoyment. Downloading songs has a minimal deterrence effect on music artists’ creativity, which is proven by many new and established artists allowing free downloads of their music. Even with people downloading music, artists are still coming out with music due in part to a growth in technology.
> >
If it costs little to produce and distribute music as an artist, what role does copyright play now? The argument that copyright promotes artist incentives no longer makes sense because of the relatively low cost to produce music, and subsequent ease to recuperate production costs. All that copyright is doing now is inhibiting the growth of music. Taking one idea and tweaking it to create something that reaches a new audience. The proposed solution would be to change usage rights altogether when it comes to copyright law. We already have specific laws governing the usage of copyrighted material as parody, why not have separate copyright laws governing private home usage?
Changed:
< <
Where Do We Go From Here?
> >
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."
Changed:
< <
We are already moving towards a world with free music. For example, Grooveshark, Lastfm, and Pandora offer free online streaming music. What comes next is free downloadable music that allows artists to work with other artist's music (such as Girl Talk) without having to go through licensing red tape. With the increasing ability to produce, reproduce, and distribute copyrightable material, copyright laws need to be revamped for the new technological era. With the increased entrenchment of the internet and quality of home recording studios, copyrights, with regards to home usage, should be changed to reflect the lower costs faced by new artists looking to break onto the scene.
> >
Allow home users unrestricted, free access to music for private enjoyment. The laws should still govern restricted usage in a type of public setting, such as commercials and radio, but with respect to privately enjoying songs while working, just allow free enjoyment. Downloading songs has a minimal deterrence effect on music artists’ creativity, which is proven by many new and established artists allowing free downloads of their music. Even with people downloading music, artists are still coming out with music due in part to a growth in technology.
Added:
> >
Where Do We Go From Here?
Changed:
< <
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
> >
We are already moving towards a world with free music. For example, Grooveshark, Lastfm, and Pandora offer free online streaming music. What comes next is free downloadable music that allows artists to work with other artist's music (such as Girl Talk) without having to go through licensing red tape. With the increasing ability to produce, reproduce, and distribute copyrightable material, copyright laws need to be revamped for the new technological era. With the increased entrenchment of the internet and quality of home recording studios, copyrights, with regards to home usage, should be changed to reflect the lower costs faced by new artists looking to break onto the scene.
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.
Deleted:
< <
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
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.