| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Hey! Get Off My Copyright! (Work in Progress)
-- By AbielGarcia - 25 Feb 2010 | | | All That Hard Work, Need To Get Paid. | |
<
< | I remember the first day I downloaded a song from Napster. It was great, quick, and free. As a matter of fact, I still have that Linkin Park song in my iTunes. Today, music cost me 0.99 cents, or 1.29 depending on how popular the song is. This is mostly because record labels derive their general revenue from CDs and their bands recordings. In actuality, bands make very little off their CD sales, and get most of their revenue from touring and public appearances. So, 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 are not incentivized to create new music, since they will not be reimbursed for time working before they make it big. Before expounding the problem with the advocates argument, a simple understanding of copyright law needs to be laid down. Next, an analysis of what the internet has done for artists in the past ten years and what this means for a starting artist needs to be described. These two factors, together, will provide a better understanding for why the copyright advocates argument for strict copyright law with regards to home usage holds no water, and what this means for copyright law moving further. | >
> | I remember the first day I downloaded a song from Napster. It was quick and free. As a matter of fact, I still have that Linkin Park song in my iTunes. 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. Before expounding the problem with the advocates' argument, a simple understanding of copyright law needs to be reached. Next, an analysis of what the internet has done for artists in the past ten years and what this means for a new artist needs to be described. These two factors, together, will provide a better understanding for why the copyright advocates argument for strict copyright law and DRM (Digital Rights Management) with regards to home usage holds no water, and what this means for copyright law moving further | | | Traditional Copyright Understanding | |
<
< | In the US, copyright law grants the artist/creator rights over their creation for their life plus seventy years. This was granted to maximize the incentive towards artists to create new types of music, and if they did, to be compensated for the time put into creating the music. The advocates state that by removing copyright law, artists will lose incentive to create because of the inability to be compensated for their work and effort. Assuming the sole reason why artist make music is money, then this would be true. If copyright protection is not available, CDs would essentially be free because they would be available for download, and record labels would not produce profits from their artists, due to lack of CD sales. If record labels are not making money, they will not sign artists. Artists would not be signed and unable to produce music since recording alone would be too expensive. Yet, the evolution of the internet and progress in recording technology now allows artists to get around problems of recording and producing music, and should change the underlying reason for copyright laws. | >
> | In the US, copyright law grants the artist/creator rights over their creation for their life plus seventy years. This was granted to maximize the incentive towards artists to create new music, and if they did, to be compensated for the time put into creating the music. The advocates state that by removing copyright law, artists will lose incentive to create because of the inability to be compensated for their work and effort. Assuming one of the primary reasons why an artist makes music is for money, then this would be true. If copyright protection is not available, music would be free because it would be available for download, and record labels would not recoup profits from their artists, due to lack of CD sales. If record labels are not making money, they will not sign artists. Artists would not be signed and unable to produce music since recording alone would be too expensive. Yet, the evolution of the internet and progress in recording technology now allows artists to get around problems of recording and producing music, and should change the underlying reasons for copyright laws. | | |
The Internet and Progress in Recording Technology | |
<
< | Remember 56K modems and that annoying dial tone when you used to try and sign onto AOL? Now, the internet is everywhere and allows us to do miraculous things that were not thought possible back when we had the floppy disc. Not only can we surf at incredibly fast speeds, we can do it almost anywhere and at anytime. We can upload, download, stream, and view content anywhere around the globe. The internet has become a daily part of our society, but along with it, recording programs and software for the average home user have grown exponentially. Youtube allows viewers to record anything and upload it. Software like Garageband, while not perfect, allows artists to individually record instruments, and possibly self-produce whole albums with full bands for low cost. Artists Justin Beiber and Ronald Jenkees got their start by uploading some of their music on 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 low 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, 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. | | | Rethinking Copyright Law in the Music Industry | |
<
< | If it costs little to produce and distribute music as an artist, what roll does copyright play now? The argument that copyright promotes incentives artist no longer makes sense because of the relatively low cost to produce music, and thus, to recuperate these 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 artists allowing free downloads of their music. Even with people downloading music, artists are still coming out with new and different types of 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? 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. | | | Where Do We Go From Here? | |
<
< | 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 troubles. With the increasing ability to produce, reproduce, and distribute copyrightable material, copyright laws need to be readjusted for the new technological era. With the increasing 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. | >
> | 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. | | |
|
|