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?